Skip to main content

Full text of "Inslaw/PROMIS Bua Report"

See other formats







March 1993 







A. The Brewer Bias Theory 4 

B . The Conspiracy Allegations 6 

C. Additional Allegations 10 





A. History of Inslaw 15 

b. Negotiation of the 1982 Implementation Contract . . 18 

C. Early Proprietary Rights Disputes 21 

D. The Advance Payments Dispute 24 

E. The Events Leading Up To Modification 12 25 

F. Inslaw's Efforts to Identify the Proprietary 

Enhancements 32 

G. The Effect of The Bankruptcy Court's Findings ... 36 



A. The Claimed Direct Evidence Of A Conspiracy ..... 41 

1. Michael Riconosciuto . 42 

a. summary of Riconosciuto' s Allegations . . 42 

{i) Riconosciuto' s Calls To The 

Hamiltons 43 

(ii) Riconosciuto' s March 21, 1991 

Affidavit 44 

{ i i i ) Riconosciuto' s Statement to 

Congress 46 

(iv) Riconosciuto' s Testimony At His 

Trial 47 

b. The Inconsistencies within The 

Allegations 49 

c. Results Of Our investigation 53 

{ i ) The Wackenhut-Cabazon Joint 

Venture 55 

{ii) The September 10, 1981 weapons 

Demonstration 61 

{ i i i ) Riconosciuto' s March 29, 1991 

Arrest 66 

Material' Omitted Pursuant 

2 . 


Ari Ben-Menashe '\ Pe . d « R .*' ^ 

a. Ben-Menashe 1 s Previous Allegations ... 73 

b. Our Investigation 75 

Charles Hayes 81 

-l - 

B. The Claimed Circumstantial Evidence Of A 

Conspiracy 85 

1. The Alleged Call From Dominic Laiti 87 

2. The 1983 Laiti Trip To New York 87 

a. Earl Brian 88 

b. Dominic Laiti 88 

c. Paul Wormeli 88 

d. Marilyn Titus 90 

e. Mark Kesselman ' 90 

3. The 53rd Street Ventures Connection 91 

a. Daniel Tessler 92 

b. Richard D'Amore 95 

c. Patricia Cloherty 95 

4. The Jonathan Ben Cnaan Allegations 97 

5. The Edward Hurley Overtures 98 

6. The Accumenics Contract Award 100 

7. The Alleged Videnieks /Hadron Connection . . . 101 

8. The Attempted Purchase of Inslaw By SCT . . . 104 

9. The Lois Battistoni Allegations 106 

a. Lois Battistoni . 106 

b. Charles Trombetta 1 . . . . 109 

c. Garnett Taylor 109 

d. James Walker Ill 

e. Floyd Bankson 112 

10. Ronald LeGrand 113 

C. Conclusion Regarding The Alleged Earl Brian 

Connection 121 



A. The Advance Payments Dispute 127 

B. DOJ's Demand For a Copy Of PROMIS 129 

C. DOJ's Original Demand Was Not For Enhanced PROMIS . 133 

D. DOJ's Conduct After Modification 12 136 


A. A Comparison of FOIMS and PROMIS 141 

1. The Allegation that FOIMS is Pirated From 


2. Our Investigation . 143 

B. DOJ's Self -Installation of PROMIS 147 

C. The Alleged International Distribution of PROMIS by 

DOJ 150 



A. The Selection Process 155 

1 . The Vacancy 155 

2. The Merit Selection Panel 155 

3. The Panel's Consideration of the Inslaw 

Ruling 156 

- ii - 

a. AUSA reported inslaw ruling to Civil 

Division Chief 157 

b. Royce Lambreth reported inslaw ruling to 

Judge Johnson 160 

c. The Panel considered the inslaw ruling . 162 

d. Our Conclusions Regarding Lambreth' s 

Communication With Judge Johnson .... 163 

4. Opposition to Bason From Outside DOJ 166 

5. The Other Possible Opposition Effort 169 

6. The Panel's Recommendation 171 

7. The Judicial Council's Recommendation .... 171 

8. The Selection By the Court of Appeals .... 172 

9. The Confidential Memorandum 172 

B. The Initial Allegation 175 

C. DOJ's Motion to Recuse Bason 176 

1. Prior Consideration of a Recusal Motion . . . 176 

2. Letter to Wald as Basis for Recusal 177 

3. House Judiciary Committee's Implied 

Criticism 179 

D. Bason's Lawsuit 180 

E. More Detailed Allegations 181 

1. The Overheard Remark of a DOJ Attorney .... 181 

2. Repprter Chris Welles 182 

3. Stuart Schiffer 182 

4. Judge Tim Murphy 184 

5. Kevin Reynolds /William Hamilton 185 

6. William Hamilton/Garnett Taylor . 186 

F. Conclusion 188 


A. Background 190 

1. The Primary Allegation 191 

2. The Cover-Up Allegations 193 

3. The Bankruptcy Court Decision 194 

4. The OPR Investigation 196 

5. The Public integrity Investigation 198 

6. The Senate Subcommittee's Investigation . . . 200 

7. The House Judiciary Committee investigation . 202 

B. Our Analysis 203 

1. Brewer's Conversation with Stanton 203 

2. Pasciuto's Allegation that Stanton Pressured 

White to Convert the Inslaw Case 204 

3. The Videnieks' Notes 211 

4. McKain's Testimony 212 

5. White's Addition to Confidentiality Order . . 214 

6. Cornelius Blackshear 215 

7. Stanton's Consideration of Transferring 

Harry Jones 224 

C. Conclusion 226 


1. The Alleged Scheme To Convert 227 

2. The Alleged Cover-up 229 

a. Blackshear's Recantation 229 

b. Pasciuto's Termination 230 


A. Allegation that DOJ's Objections Created Delays . . 232 

B. Allegation that DOJ violated Conflict of interest 

Principles 235 

C. Question of whether DOJ Destroyed Documents. . . . 237 

D. Allegation that DOJ interfered with the House 

Committee's interview of Riconosciuto 242 


A. Allegations Concerning Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin . 244 

B. The Death of Joseph Daniel Casolaro 246 

C. The Alleged Sham Contract Disputes 250 

D. Response Of DOJ To Claims of Brewer Bias 256 

E. Inslaw's Proof Of Private Financing 261 





On November 7, 1991, Attorney General william Barr appointed 
me to serve as a Special Counsel for the purpose of investigating 
all allegations of wrongdoing in connection with what has come to 
be known as the Inslaw matter. The Attorney General requested that 
I conduct a complete and thorough investigation, and determine 
whether there had been any misconduct by any individuals, either 
inside or outside the Department of Justice. The Attorney General 
told me that my investigation should be completely independent, and 
assured me that he would demand complete cooperation with my 
investigation by all Department of Justice employees. 

I selected six Assistant united States Attorneys, all with 
significant criminal prosecution experience, and one of my law 
partners, to assist me in my investigation. 1 Together, my 
assistants and I selected two seasoned and highly regarded Special 
Agents from the FBI to work as our investigators. For purposes of 
this investigation, the Assistant U.S. Attorneys and the FBI agents 
reported solely to me, and to nobody else within the Department of 
Justice ("DOJ"). 

During the past year we have devoted considerable resources to 
investigating the myriad allegations that have been made about the 
conduct of DOJ employees, and others, in connection with the 

: One of the Assistant United States Attorneys I originally 
selected resigned from my staff after he was appointed Chief of the 
Public integrity Section of the criminal Division of the Department 
of Justice. We agreed that resignation was appropriate in order to 
maintain the independence of this investigation. In addition, 
Thomas M. Durkin, the former First Assistant United States Attorney 
for the Northern District of Illinois resigned from my staff when 
he entered private practice in February 1993. 

administration of a contract between DOJ and Inslaw . At times, 
this has been a daunting task. The allegations in this case seem 
to know no bounds. They literally range from charges of murder and 
international espionage to claims of simple incompetence. In 
investigating these allegations, we necessarily had to assign 
priorities to our tasks. We have for the most part completed our 
investigation regarding what we consider be the most serious 
allegations. As is described more specifically elsewhere in this 
report, there remain a few areas where we have not completed our 
investigation. Our preliminary review of these remaining areas, 
however, leads us to believe that it is unlikely that we will find 
evidence that would affect the tentative conclusions set out in 
this report. We are forwarding our conclusions to you now in order 
to allow you to determine how you wish to proceed in this matter. 2 

2 During our investigation we subpoenaed several third party 
witnesses to appear before a grand jury in the Northern District of 
Illinois. Matters occurring before the grand jury are described in 
several places in this report. Pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the 
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, those matters cannot be 
disclosed without leave of the Chief Judge of the district court. 
Consequently, unless and until that authorization is obtained, we 
will be taking the customary precautions to preserve the 
confidentiality of this report and the matters discussed herein. 

- 2 - 


Inslaw has made essentially two kinds of allegations against 
DOJ concerning the reasons for its contract disputes with the 
Department. First, inslaw has argued that C. Madison "Brick" 
Brewer, the DOJ official principally in charge of the PROMIS 
implementation contract for the Executive Office of the United 
States Attorneys (EOUSA) , was biased against inslaw because Brewer 
had been fired by Inslaw’s President several years before. Under 
this theory. Brewer’s alleged bias was the motivating factor behind 
a series of contract disputes between inslaw and DOJ. Those 
disputes were allegedly engineered or exploited by Brewer, and by 
those DOJ employees subject to his influence and control, in order 
to harm inslaw and its president, William Hamilton. This is the 
theory Inslaw advanced in its complaint and its trial presentation 
in the adversary proceeding in its bankruptcy case. 

In addition to the Brewer bias theory, inslaw has also 
advanced a theory that DOJ's disputes with Inslaw were the result 
of a far wider conspiracy or conspiracies, most of which 
purportedly sought to appropriate Inslaw's software for the benefit 
of Earl Brian, a private businessman alleged to have ties to 
officials of the Reagan administration. 

Although the two kinds of theories proposed by inslaw are not 
mutually exclusive, there is some tension between the two and each 
theory has a somewhat different evolution. Consequently, the 
histories of the two theories are discussed separately in this 

- 3 - 


The Brewer Bias Theory 

Brewer started his duties at the eousa in January 1982. The 
PROMIS implementation contract with Inslaw was signed in March 1982 
after at least one negotiating session in which Brewer 
participated. Inslaw first began complaining about Brewer's 
alleged bias in May 1982, after a meeting in which Brewer 
criticized Inslaw. Inslaw maintained that Brewer was biased 
against the company and its President, William Hamilton, because 
Brewer had been "fired" as the General Counsel of inslaw' s 
predecessor, the institute for Law and Social Research. inslaw 
repeated the charge of Brewer's bias against the company at various 
times and to various people within DOJ throughout the term of the 

in February 1985 inslaw filed for relief under Chapter 11 of 
the Bankruptcy Code. Thereafter, the parties attempted to reach a 
settlement of their contract disputes, and Inslaw again renewed its 
charges that Brewer was biased and should be removed from 
.participation in the negotiations. Although Brewer was removed 
from direct participation in the negotiations, the parties were 
unable to reach an accord. In June 1986 inslaw filed its adversary 
complaint against DOJ. In its complaint, inslaw charged, and 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason subsequently found, that DOJ, infected by 
Brewer's bias and hatred of inslaw, obtained Inslaw's proprietary 
PROMIS software by the use of "fraud, trickery and deceit." inslaw 
argued that Brewer was permitted to wage his personal vendetta 
against Inslaw by Deputy Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen. Inslaw 

- 4 - 

alleged that because of his personal involvement in the development 
of competing computer software, Jensen disliked PROMIS and was 
hostile toward Inslaw. 

in February 1987, in its so-called request for "independent 
handling, " Inslaw again charged that Brewer was biased against 
inslaw, and suggested that his bias had hampered the efforts of 
Inslaw to settle its claims against DOJ. :) Although an extensive 
hearing was held on the "independent handling" application, no 
substantial evidence was presented at that time about Brewer's 
alleged bias against the company. Nor was Brewer called as a 
witness at the hearing. Nevertheless, at the conclusion of the 
hearing, and immediately before commencing the hearing on the 
adversary complaint, Bankruptcy Judge Bason issued his oral 
findings and conclusions on the "independent handling" matter. In 
his findings. Bankruptcy Judge Bason stated that he believed Brewer 
had obtained a commitment from the Executive Office of United 
States Trustees to have the Inslaw case converted from a Chapter 11 
reorganization to a Chapter 7 liquidation. In explaining his 
reasons for believing that a conspiracy to convert the case 
existed, Bankruptcy Judge Bason explained: 

The picture becomes even more clear if we 
go on the supposition, as alleged by INSLAW, 
and as is the subject of --or one of the issues 

3 In its "independent handling" petition. Inslaw requested that 
the court establish "a means whereby the Justice Department will 
conduct [the Inslaw] Adversary Proceeding . . . completely and 
entirely independent of any Department of Justice officials 
involved in the allegations made in said Adversary Proceeding." 
The independent handling proceedings are discussed in greater 
detail in Part IX of this report. 

- 5 - 

involved in a separate adversary proceeding. 

Inslaw against DOJ. If we go on the 
supposition that it was not simply the 
interests of DOJ as an institution that 
motivated Mr. Brewer and perhaps others in the 
Department of Justice, but, instead, there was 
a personal vendetta against INSLAW, when 
someone is engaged in a personal vendetta, 
then obviously, that person would desire to 
put the company out of business rather than 
desire to preserve them as a going concern. 

When he announced his findings after the trial of Inslaw's 
adversary proceeding. Bankruptcy Judge Bason, this time after 
having the opportunity to see Brewer on the stand, reached 
essentially the same conclusion about the cause of the inslaw-DOJ 
disputes. According to the Bankruptcy Court's findings. Brewer 
devised and implemented a strategy to ruin Inslaw because of his 
intense hatred of Inslaw. The Bankruptcy Judge found that Brewer's 
bias affected not only his own conduct, but also the conduct of 
other DOJ personnel with day to day responsibility for the Inslaw 
contract. He said that DOJ's Contracting Officer and the EOUSA 
Assistant Director for information Systems "were infected by 
Brewer's poisonous attitude towards Hamilton and Inslaw, and they 
aided and assisted Brewer in his wrongful efforts to injure 
Inslaw." Bankruptcy Judge Bason also concluded that D. Lowell 
Jensen's biased attitude toward Inslaw contributed to the situation 
in which Inslaw’s complaints about Brewer and the administration of 
the PROMIS implementation contract went unheeded. 

B . The Conspiracy Allegations 

In early 1988, after Bankruptcy Judge Bason announced his 
findings and conclusions in Inslaw's adversary proceeding. Inslaw 

* 6 - 


advanced a new theory about the origins of its disputes with DOJ. 
Under this new theory. Inslaw's difficulties with DOJ were the 
result of a high level conspiracy to "steal" promis for the benefit 
of Earl Brian. Although there were a number of subplots and 
elements to this theory, it was well summarized by Inslaw in a 
pleading it subsequently filed with the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia which described "a conspiracy 
among friends of Attorney General Meese to take advantage of their 
relationship with him for the purpose of obtaining a lucrative 
contract for the automation of the Department's litigating 
divisions" : 

The combination of high-level hostility and 
lower- level vindictiveness does not 
sufficiently account for the persistence and 
tenacity of the attempts to wrest control of 
PROMIS from INSLAW. These began with DOJ's 
refusal to recognize INSLAW's ownership of 
enhanced PROMIS. Then came an offer from 
Hadron, Inc., a software company controlled by 
a long-time friend of Edwin Meese, to buy 
INSLAW. When Hamilton refused the offer, the 
chairman of Hadron said, "We have ways of 
making you sell." Soon thereafter a New York- 
based venture capital firm, following a 
meeting with a businessman who claimed to have 
access to the highest levels of the Reagan 
administration, tried to induce the Hamiltons 
to turn over to the firm their voting rights 
in INSLAW's common stock, when the contract 
disputes forced INSLAW to seek the protection 
of Chapter 11, Stanton attempted to push 
INSLAW into liquidation. After this failed, 

DOJ officials encouraged a Pennsylvania -based 
computer services company to launch a hostile 
takeover bid for INSLAW. 

in September 1989 the Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations 
of the Committee on Governmental Affairs of the United States 
Senate, which had investigated many of Inslaw's conspiracy 


allegations, issued a Staff Study. Briefly, the Staff Study found 
no proof that Attorney General Meese, Deputy Attorney General 
Jensen, or other Justice Department officials were involved in a 
conspiracy to ruin Inslaw or to steal the PROMIS software. 
Similarly, the Staff found no proof that Earl Brian or any company 
in which he had an interest was involved in a conspiracy to take 
over Inslaw. The Staff Study also found no proof that inslaw' s 
problems were related in any way to the DOJ "Project Eagle" 

Following the release of the Senate's Staff Study in September 
1989 (and the almost simultaneous decision of the Court of Appeals 
for the District of Columbia Circuit to deny Inslaw's request for 
appointment of independent counsel) , Inslaw petitioned the District 
Court for the District of Columbia for a writ of mandamus to compel 
DOJ to conduct a criminal investigation of its allegations. The 
district court denied the petition in September 1990. 

Soon after the denial of its petition. Inslaw returned to 
court seeking to reopen discovery in the bankruptcy proceedings in 
order to investigate whether DOJ had violated the Bankruptcy 
Court's injunction prohibiting DOJ from distributing Inslaw's 
enhanced version of the PROMIS software. In a series of papers 
filed to persuade the court to reopen discovery. Inslaw began to 
advance allegations of a broader conspiracy involving Earl Brian's 
alleged distribution of the proprietary PROMIS software. In 
general, these allegations involved not just the unlawful 
appropriation of Inslaw's enhanced PROMIS by DOJ for its own 

- 8 - 

internal uses or as part of an unsuccessful plot to benefit Earl 
Brian, but the actual distribution of enhanced PROMIS to other 
government agencies and internationally. 

For example. Inslaw cited an article quoting a man named 
Charles Hayes as expressing his opinion that PROMIS was then being 
used at more than 200 locations throughout the federal government. 
Inslaw also filed with the court affidavits of Ari Ben-Menashe, in 
which Ben-Menashe implicated Earl Brian in the international 
distribution of PROMIS. By 1991, apparently based upon information 
provided to it by Michael Riconosciuto, Inslaw appears to have 
adopted the claim that Earl Brian was "given" the right to sell 
PROMIS by the Reagan administration. Under this theory, Brian was 
awarded the right to sell PROMIS as a reward for his participation 
in a plot by which supporters of then candidate for President, 
Ronald Reagan, allegedly made agreements with representatives of 
the Iranian government to delay the release of American hostages 
held in Iran until after the Presidential election {the so-called 
"October Surprise") . 

Inslaw's request for additional discovery was ultimately 
mooted by the U.S. Court of Appeals' decision holding that the 
Bankruptcy Court lacked jurisdiction over inslaw's claims against 
DOJ. United States v. Inslaw, Inc. . 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C. Cir. 
1991), cert, denied , 112 S. Ct. 913 (1992). The allegations of a 
conspiracy involving the actual distribution of Inslaw's 
proprietary software are discussed, along with other allegations, 
in the September 10, 1992, Investigative Report of the U.S, House 

- 9 - 

of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary entitled "The Inslaw 
Affair" (hereinafter the "House Committee Report"). The House 
Committee Report, however, does not reach any definitive factual 
findings regarding these allegations. Instead, the Report, for the 
most part, simply reports the various allegations that Inslaw has 
made and concludes that additional investigation is warranted. 

C. Additional Allegations 

These, then, are the two major allegations made by Inslaw: a 
personal vendetta and plan to ruin Inslaw motivated by Brewer's 
intense hatred of the company, and a far-reaching, high-level 
conspiracy to appropriate Inslaw's software. But these are not the 
only allegations. Over the course of the long disputes between 
Inslaw and DOJ many subsidiary allegations have surfaced which we 
have also investigated as described in this report. 

As mentioned earlier, during the course of the bankruptcy 
proceedings Inslaw alleged that DOJ improperly attempted to force 
the U.S. Trustee to convert the bankruptcy case from a 
reorganization to a liquidation proceeding. Inslaw also claimed 
that when the plot was revealed, others suborned or committed 
perjury to attempt to conceal DOJ's actions and DOJ fired the 
"whistleblower" who first disclosed the scheme. During and after 
the bankruptcy proceedings, inslaw has alleged that not only did 
DOJ plot to steal its software, but it has also improperly used and 
distributed that software. 

Following the oral announcement of his decision that DOJ 
obtained Inslaw's software by "fraud, trickery and deceit," 

- 10 - 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason learned that he had not been reappointed to 
a second term on the Bankruptcy Court by the Court of Appeals for 
the D.C. Circuit. This led to claims by Inslaw and others that DOJ 
must have improperly exercised its influence to obstruct Bason's 
reappointment . 

As noted above, the number and seriousness of Inslaw's 
allegations against DOJ led to two Congressional investigations, 
one in the Senate and the other in the House of Representatives. 
The propriety of DOJ's conduct in connection with the Congressional 
inquiries has, in turn, been questioned. It has been suggested 
that DOJ unduly delayed the Congressional investigations, violated 
conflict of interest principles in connection with its 
representation of DOJ employees who appeared before Congress to 
testify, failed to produce, and perhaps even destroyed, documents 
requested during those inquiries, and interfered with Congressional 
attempts to interview one Congressional witness who was also the 
subject of a federal criminal prosecution. 

These are the allegations to which we devoted the bulk of our 
investigative efforts. It does not, however, exhaust the list of 
allegations against DOJ. For example, there have been suggestions 
by Inslaw and others of DOJ's involvement in the death of a free- 
lance journalist who was examining Inslaw's claims. There have 
been claims that DOJ improperly exerted pressure upon Inslaw's own 
attorneys to force them to abandon Inslaw's claims. We have not 
thoroughly investigated each and every one of these remaining 
allegations, but we have reviewed the records and prior 

- 11 - 

investigations that have been made of the allegations in order to 
assure ourselves that there is little likelihood that additional 
investigation will discover substantial evidence of criminal or 
other intentional misconduct by DOJ. Our discussion of these 
remaining allegations appears in one of the final sections of this 
report . 

- 12 - 


Based on all the evidence we obtained and reviewed during our 
investigation, we reached the following conclusions. The reasons 
for our conclusions are set forth in detail in later sections of 
this report. 

There is no credible evidence to support the allegation that 
members of DOJ conspired with Earl Brian to obtain or distribute 
PROMIS software. The overwhelming weight of the evidence is that 
there was absolutely no connection between Earl Brian and anything 
related to Inslaw or PROMIS software. 

There is woefully insufficient evidence to support the 
allegation that DOJ obtained an enhanced version of PROMIS through 
"fraud, trickery, and deceit," or that DOJ wrongfully distributed 
PROMIS within or outside of DOJ. To the contrary, we are convinced 
that DOJ employees undertook actions with respect to Inslaw that 
they genuinely believed were in the best legitimate interests of 
the government. 

We also find that DOJ conducted itself properly after it 
became involved in litigation with Inslaw. 

we find that there is no credible evidence that DOJ employees 
sought to improperly influence the selection process that resulted 
in the decision not to reappoint Bankruptcy Judge Bason. 

We find that there is insufficient evidence to support the 
allegations that DOJ employees attempted to improperly influence 
the U.S. Trustee to convert the inslaw bankruptcy case, or that DOJ 
employees committed perjury in order to hide this obstruction. 

- 13 - 

Finally, we find that there is no evidence to support the 
allegation that DOJ employees destroyed any documents related to 
Inslaw or otherwise acted improperly in order to obstruct 
Congressional investigations into Inslaw's allegations. 

- 14 - 


Most of Inslaw's allegations of wrongdoing focus on alleged 
attempts to steal its property, specifically, an enhanced version 
of PROMIS software to which Inslaw claims ownership. it is 
undisputed that certain versions of PROMIS are in the public 
domain. Inslaw has consistently asserted, however, that it 
maintains proprietary rights in the enhanced version of PROMIS it 
developed after it became a for-profit enterprise. Because one of 
the central areas of disagreement between DOJ and Inslaw throughout 
this dispute has been whether, and to what extent, the software 
delivered under the 1982 implementation contract was proprietary to 
inslaw, any analysis of the allegations of wrongdoing must begin 
with an understanding of the history of the PROMIS software, and of 
the circumstances surrounding the delivery of a claimed proprietary 
version to DOJ during the 1982 implementation contract. 

Our discussion here of the factual background of the 1982 
contract does not purport to be exhaustive. Instead, we have 
attempted to focus on those facts that are relevant to the 
conclusions we have reached. Where it is necessary to explain 
specific findings or conclusions, we have undertaken a more 
detailed examination of certain events in subsequent sections of 
this report. 

A. History of Inslaw 

In 1973 William Hamilton and Dean Merrill formed the Institute 
For Law And Social Research ("the institute") as a not-for-profit 
entity. Among the activities of the Institute was the development 

- 15 - 

of database management computer software to be used in automating 
law enforcement offices. The software tool the Institute developed 
for prosecutors* offices was called PROMIS, an acronym for 
Prosecutor's Management Information System. PROMIS is a computer 
based software tool designed to run on mainframe and mini- 
computers. 4 Between 1973 and 1979 PROMIS was used primarily by 
state and local prosecutors, and the Superior Court division of the 
United States Attorney's office for the District of Columbia. This 
original version of PROMIS is sometimes referred to as "Old 

The institute developed Old PROMIS with funding provided 
through contracts and grants from the Law Enforcement Assistance 
Administration ( "LEAA" ) . Because of certain data rights clauses 
contained in the Institute's LEAA grants and contracts, inslaw and 
DOJ agree that Old PROMIS is in the public domain, and that neither 
the institute nor its successor, inslaw, maintains any exclusive 
rights to that product. 

In 1979 the Institute entered into two contracts with the 
government that are relevant to this dispute. The first, with the 
LEAA, was a three year "cost-plus" contract that called for the 
Institute to create certain upgrades and enhancements to Old 
PROMIS. When the LEAA was eliminated in 1981, the final year of 
this contract was transferred to DOJ's Bureau of Justice Statistics 
( "BJS " ) . Under the LEAA contract that was transferred to BJS, the 

4 A mini-computer is a scaled-down version of a mainframe 
computer, and should not be confused with the much smaller personal 
computers that became abundant in the 1980's. 

- 16 - 

Institute continued to develop five specific enhancements to Old 
PROMIS. 5 These enhancements have been referred to throughout the 
Inslaw litigation as the five BJS enhancements. 

The second 1979 contract was between the Institute and the 
EOUSA. This contract, usually referred to as the "Pilot Project," 
was designed to determine the feasibility of using PROMIS as a 
locally based case management program in United States Attorneys ' 
offices throughout the United States. The Pilot project called for 
the institute to: (1) modify and install a modified version of Old 
PROMIS 6 in two large United States Attorneys offices (the Southern 
District of California, and the District of New Jersey) , and (2) to 
develop and install a PROMIS- like software program on word 
processing equipment in two smaller offices (the Districts of West 
Virginia and Vermont) . 

As with Old PROMIS, Inslaw does not dispute that the Pilot 
project version of PROMIS and the five BJS enhancements were 
created with public funding and are therefore in the public 
domain. 7 

s As a matter of DOJ internal accounting, approximately 
$500,000 used to fund the contract after it was transferred to BJS 
came out of the budget of the Executive Office of United States 
Attorneys ("EOUSA") . This internal cost accounting does not affect 
the claim of EOUSA to any of the versions of PROMIS, old or 
enhanced . 

6 The most significant change made in the Pilot Project version 
of PROMIS was the addition of debt collection and other tracking 
capabilities designed to improve case management in the civil 
divisions of the United States Attorneys' offices. 

7 prior to the 1982 contract award, inslaw had tried to claim 
that it owned all versions of PROMIS, and that the government only 

(continued. . . ) 

- 17 - 

In response to the announced liquidation of the LEAA, william 
Hamilton decided to form a private enterprise to support existing 
PROMIS users and to market new enhanced versions of PROMIS. Before 
engaging in this enterprise, Hamilton notified DOJ of his 
intentions, and DOJ expressed no objections to Hamilton's plans. 
In January 1981 Hamilton organized Inslaw as a for-profit 
corporation, and caused inslaw to purchase the assets of the 
Institute. While Inslaw continued to receive certain funding from 
the federal government during the period of 1981-1982, it also 
began attracting private sources of both income and equity funding. 
During this same period, Inslaw continued working on various 
changes and improvements to the PROMIS software. 

B . Negotiation of the 19B2 Implementation Contract 

After reviewing the results of the Pilot Project, DOJ decided 
to implement locally based case management systems in the United 
States Attorneys offices throughout the country. Toward that end, 
on November 2, 1981, DOJ issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) , 
which solicited technical proposals on a contract to: (1) implement 
computer based PROMIS software in 20 "larger" United States 
Attorneys' offices, and (2) create and install word processing 
based case management software in the remaining offices. There 
appears to be no dispute that (as to the computer based programs) 
the RFP, and the resulting contract, required the installation only 

7 ( . . .continued) 

had a "non -exclusive plenary license for their use." Inslaw later 
abandoned this position, and conceded during the bankruptcy 
litigation that Old PROMIS, the Pilot Project version, and the five 
BJS enhancements were in the public domain. 

- 18 - 

of a functional version of the Pilot Project PROMIS plus the five 
BJS enhancements. 

inslaw responded to the RFP in early December 1981. In its 

initial response Inslaw notified DOJ that it intended to improve 

the original PROMIS software and to create enhancements beyond 

those contained in the version called for in the RFP. 

Specifically, Inslaw stated: 

During the life of this project -- but not as part 
of this project -- inslaw plans new enhancements 
and modifications to the basic PROMIS software and 
to the original version of PROMIS for u.S. 
Attorneys . 

. . . . [Ilmprovements funded by other {i.e. non- 

governmental] sources and developed and accepted 
for inclusion in the software supported by Inslaw, 
will be made available to the U.S. Attorneys' 
offices . 

Neither in that proposal, nor in later pre-contract submissions or 
negotiations, did Inslaw clarify specifically what it meant by 
"accepted for inclusion" or "will be made available." 

During the pre- award negotiations DOJ and Inslaw 
representatives specifically discussed the issue of the parties' 
respective rights in the software to be delivered under the 
contract. The original draft of the contract contained two data 
rights clauses: Article XII and clause 74. Clause 74 of the 

contract gave the government unlimited rights in any technical data 
and computer software delivered under the contract. 8 Article xil. 

8 A portion of that clause also contained a provision for 
giving the government limited rights in any specifically identified 
items. But no such items were identified in clause 74. Instead, 
when the contract was signed DOJ's contracting officer inserted 
"N/A, " for not applicable, in that portion of the clause. 

-19 - 

on the other hand, purported to take the additional step of 
restricting Inslaw's right to market any products containing the 
software delivered under the contract. 9 clause XII was removed 
when inslaw expressed concerns that it would hinder inslaw's 
ability to market its enhanced PROMIS products to other users. 

While the negotiations with Inslaw were ongoing, DOJ hired C. 
Madison "Brick" Brewer to be the Project Manager overseeing the 
installation of PROMIS in United States Attorneys' offices. 
Brewer, who a number of years earlier had been General Counsel to 
the Institute, began working at EOUSA in late January 1982. He 
attended only one or two negotiating sessions prior to the signing 
of the contract. 10 

The final contract was signed on March 12, 1982. The 
contract, a cost-plus contract that also contained a fee provision, 
called for Inslaw to implement computer based PROMIS in 20 large 
United States Attorneys' offices, and to develop and implement 
PROMIS -like word processing based case management software in 74 
smaller offices. Under the contract, DOJ retained an option to 
request the installation of PROMIS in 10 additional offices. The 
version of PROMIS required under the contract -- and therefore the 
only version to which DOJ could claim unlimited rights by virtue of 

’Specifically, Article XII provided, "[t]he contractor shall 
neither retain nor reproduce for private or commercial use any 
materials furnished or produced under the contract." 

10 we discuss the details of Brewer's hiring and performance 
elsewhere in this report. 

- 20 - 

the contract -- was a functional version of the Pilot Project 
PROMIS plus the five BJS enhancements. 

C. Early Proprietary Rights Disputes 

It was less than a month after the execution of the contract 
that Inslaw and DOJ had their first disagreement over the 
respective property rights of the parties. In early April 1982 
Roderick Hills, one of Inslaw's outside lawyers, wrote to Associate 
Deputy Attorney General Stanley Morris regarding Inslaw’s plans to 
market PROMIS privately. Hills’ purpose in writing the letter was 
to obtain a "sign-off" from DOJ, so that Inslaw and its associates 
could have some assurance that DOJ would not attempt to hinder 
Inslaw's efforts to market proprietary software. Attached to 
Hills' letter was an April 1, 1982, memorandum that had been 
written by William Hamilton. The Hamilton memorandum indicated 
that Inslaw planned to market a product called PROMIS 82, over 
which it was asserting proprietary rights. In the memorandum 
Hamilton asserted that Inslaw's federal funding ended in May 1981, 
and that therefore improvements made by Inslaw to PROMIS after that 
date were proprietary to it. 

On April 19, 1982, representatives of Inslaw and DOJ met and 
discussed Inslaw's plans as reflected in the Hamilton memorandum. 
DOJ’s project manager, Brewer, made clear at the meeting that he 
took issue with the representations and conclusions set forth in 
the Hamilton memorandum, which he referred to as "scurrilous." 
Most of the people at that meeting agree that Brewer "got hot," and 
was adamant in his opposition to the positions taken in the 

- 21 - 

memorandum. Indeed, in an internal Inslaw memorandum created 
shortly after the meeting, the inslaw representatives who were 
present at that meeting speculated that the force of Brewer's 
statements reflected an "obvious dislike of Bill Hamilton and a 
resentment for the success of Inslaw personified in him." Shortly 
thereafter, Inslaw representatives complained to Associate Deputy 
Attorney General Morris that Brewer was biased, and ascribed this 
bias to the fact that Brewer had been "asked to leave” his previous 
position as General Counsel at the Institute. As a result of this 
complaint, Morris instructed EOUSA deputy director Lawrence 
McWhorter that Brewer should no longer "take the point outside the 
Department" regarding DOJ's dealings with Inslaw on the data rights 

At least some of the positions taken by Brewer at the April 19 
meeting, as opposed to the manner in which they were presented, 
appear to us to have been well founded. For example. Brewer argued 
that to the extent the memorandum claimed that all software 
developed after May 1981 was proprietary to Inslaw the memorandum 
was incorrect, in that the five BJS enhancements were in the public 
domain, even though they still had not been delivered by Inslaw as 
of April 1982. That was true, and Inslaw does not now dispute it. 
Similarly, the memorandum was incorrect to the extent that it 
suggested that Inslaw had received no federal funding after May 

- 22 - 

1981. The $500,000 under the BJS contract was but one example of 
federal monies received by Inslaw during that period. 11 

Ultimately, Inslaw and DOJ were able to come to a resolution 
that satisfied Inslaw's need for a sign-off and DOJ's need for 
assurance that Inslaw's marketing efforts would not diminish its 
rights under various contracts. In a series of letters and phone 
calls during late spring of 1982, Inslaw's lawyers assured DOJ 
personnel that Inslaw' s marketing of PROMIS 82 would have no effect 
on the performance of the EOUSA contract or on the software to 
which the government was entitled. As to whether PROMIS 82 was in 
fact proprietary to Inslaw, Hills assured Morris in a letter of May 
24, 1982, that PROMIS 82 contained "enhancements undertaken by 
Inslaw at private expense after the cessation of LEAA funding." 
Based on this representation, Morris responded to Inslaw in an 
August 11, 1982, letter, stating "[t]o the extent that any other 
enhancements to [PROMIS 82] were privately funded by Inslaw and not 
specified to be delivered to the Department of Justice under any 
contract or other arrangement. Inslaw may assert whatever 
proprietary rights it may have." This letter provided Inslaw the 
assurances it desired, and the data rights issue did not arise 
again until DOJ requested a copy of the software. 

u We found documentation indicating that after May 1981 inslaw 
executed two modifications to the BJS contract alone, in July and 
October 1981, which resulted in $650,000 being allocated to the 
development of PROMIS modifications. In addition, we have been led 
to believe that during 1981 Inslaw was receiving funds from 
contracts with DOJ's Lands Division and with the District of 
Columbia United States Attorney's Office. 

- 23 - 

D. The Advance Payments Dispute 

Under the 1982 EOUSA contract Inslaw was entitled to receive 
what have been referred to as "advance payments." This name is 
somewhat misleading. The so-called advance payments clause of the 
contract only permitted inslaw to draw against a special bank 
account after receiving approval from the government's contracting 
officer. In practice, the government contracting officer's 
approval was forthcoming only after work had been completed and 
invoiced by Inslaw. This mechanism allowed Inslaw to receive 
payment in advance of the waiting period usually necessary to 
process an invoice, but not in advance of the contpletion of the 

Advance payment clauses are unusual in government contracts. 12 
They are approved only when there is evidence that the financial 
condition of the contractor is such that it will not be able to 
bear the burden of self-financing its receivables from the 
government. In order to qualify for the advance payments clause in 
the EOUSA contract Inslaw had to make a number of representations 
about its financial resources, including a representation that it 
was not reasonably capable of obtaining financing from banks or 
other traditional commercial sources. 

The EOUSA contract also contained a contract provision that 
prohibited Inslaw from pledging or assigning its rights under the 
contract. On November 1, 1982, Inslaw informed DOJ that it had 

12 In fact, it appears that Inslaw was the only DOJ contractor 
that had such a clause at that time. 

- 24 - 

violated this provision by assigning its government invoices as 
collateral for a line of credit at the Bank of Bethesda. Upon 
receiving this notice, DOJ asked Inslaw to provide farther 
information concerning Inslaw's line of credit at the Bank of 
Bethesda. The documentation supplied by Inslaw showed that the 
line of credit had been established at the bank in April of 1982, 
less than one month after the contract was executed. 

On January 26, 1983, the contracting officer, Peter Videnieks, 
wrote Inslaw a letter confirming that DOJ considered the Bank of 
Bethesda line of credit to be a violation of the contract. 
Videnieks ' letter stated that DOJ intended to terminate the advance 
payments provision of the contract pursuant to the default 
provisions of the agreement. While conceding for the most part 
that the line of credit was a "technical violation" of the 
contract, inslaw adamantly opposed termination of the advance 
payments, inslaw insisted that the government was not at financial 
risk as a result of the violation and emphasized that the loss of 
the advance payments could greatly disrupt Inslaw's business, a 
consequence that could only have negative ramifications for the 
EOUSA contract. This dispute over advance payments was not 
resolved until April of 1983, when inslaw and DOJ executed 
Modification 12 to the EOUSA contract. 

E. The Events Leading Up To Modification 12 

During November 1982, at around the same time that DOJ first 
learned of Inslaw’s borrowing from the Bank of Bethesda, Videnieks 
received additional information concerning Inslaw's financial 

- 25 - 

situation. Robert whitely, DOJ's auditor on the inslaw contract, 
told Videnieks that based on his review of Inslaw's financial 
statements and on his discussions with Inslaw's accountants, he 
felt that inslaw was insolvent. Also, videnieks himself was told 
by inslaw’s comptroller that Inslaw had missed at least one 
payroll. in addition, videnieks and other DOJ personnel had 
concluded that inslaw 's cash flow was very tight, based on their 
having observed inslaw personnel "hand-walk" advance payments 
checks through DOJ for signature, instead of simply relying on the 

As he received information about Inslaw's financial condition, 
videnieks was aware that an inslaw failure at that time would leave 
DOJ without any copies of the version of PROMIS called for in the 
contract. The problem was that as of November 1982 DOJ had not yet 
received any copies of the software Inslaw was to deliver under the 
contract. Because DOJ had not yet obtained the computer hardware 
on which PROMIS was to be installed in the various offices. Inslaw 
was providing PROMIS to the designated United States Attorneys 
offices on a time sharing arrangement from a VAX computer in 
Virginia. These united States Attorneys offices could access 
Inslaw's time sharing computer on remote terminals through 
telecommunications facilities, and thus use PROMIS in that way 
until DOJ's computers were installed on-site. 

It was against this background, that on November 19, 1982, DOJ 
sent Inslaw a formal request for a copy of the software being used 
to perform the contract. The request stated: 

- 26 - 

Pursuant to Article XXX [ “3 of the subject 
contract the Government requests that you 
provide immediately all computer programs and 
supporting documentation developed for or 
relating to this contract. 

Inslaw responded to this letter on November 30. Inslaw noted that 
the request was technically deficient {in that the contract 
required that such a request be made by the contracting officer) , 
but also stated that it would "proceed to produce the programs and 
documents requested" if a proper request was made. On December 6, 
1982, Videnieks sent a formal request under Article XXX, requesting 
the production of all the PROMIS programs and documentation being 
provided under the contract. 

The next significant discussion between DOJ and Inslaw 
concerning the request for software was on February 4, 1983. 14 The 
primary focus of the meeting was the advance payments dispute. 
Toward the end of that meeting, the subject of the government's 

“Article XXX permitted the government to request these 
materials at any time during the life of the contract. 

14 Inslaw had sent a letter to DOJ on February 2, notifying DOJ 
that it was claiming that the time -sharing version of PROMIS 
contained proprietary enhancements. The letter read, in part: 

In producing these tapes, inslaw and the Department 
of Justice will have to reach an agreement on the 
inclusion or exclusion of certain proprietary 
features which Inslaw has been making available to 
U.S. Attorneys offices that utilize its time 
sharing service. These features are normally 
included only on tapes produced pursuant to license 
agreements . 

This letter did not reach DOJ prior to the February 4 meeting. 

- 27 - 


request for a copy of the contract software was raised. 15 
Hamilton and others from Inslaw told the DOJ personnel in 
attendance that the VAX ( i .e. , the time sharing) version of PROMIS 
that was being used under the contract by the United States 
Attorneys' offices contained certain proprietary enhancements to 
which the EOUSA was not entitled. Hamilton said that Inslaw 
therefore could not provide those enhancements to DOJ unless DOJ 
agreed to limit dissemination of the software. 

This was the first time that Inslaw had notified DOJ that any 
proprietary enhancements were in the time- sharing version of PROMIS 
being used by the u.s. Attorneys' offices. 16 The DOJ personnel 
stressed that they were entitled under the contract to a version of 
PROMIS in which the government had unlimited rights, and asked 
Inslaw to provide additional information about the enhancements it 
was claiming as proprietary. Inslaw agreed to provide the 
information. In addition, Hamilton made statements indicating that 
it would be very difficult to remove the enhancements from the time 
sharing version of PROMIS, but said that Inslaw would be willing to 

15 lt appears that from at least this point on, doj collapsed 
the negotiations of the advance payment dispute into the 
negotiations of the software request and the proprietary rights 

16 Videnieks confirmed this fact in a March 8, 1983, letter to 
inslaw's government contracts lawyer, Harvey Sherzer, in which he 
specifically asked sherzer to identify any DOJ personnel to whom 
notice was given prior to February 4, 1983, that there were 
proprietary enhancements contained in the VAX version of PROMIS. 
Inslaw never responded to the letter, or in any other way 
identified any government representative it claimed had notice that 
Inslaw was providing DOJ access to a version of PROMIS other than 
the version called for in the contract. 

- 28 - 

provide the proprietary enhancements to DOJ without additional 
charge if DOJ would limit their dissemination. 17 DOJ took the 
position that it was not seeking to obtain any enhancements for 
free, but stressed that it was entitled under the contract to a 
version in which it had unlimited rights. In his March 8, 1983, 
letter to Sherzer, Videnieks reaffirmed DOj's view that the 
contract called for Inslaw to produce software in which the 
government had unlimited rights, and that delivery of a version 
containing restrictions would not satisfy Inslaw's obligations 
under the contract. 

On March 9, 1983, Sherzer wrote to Videnieks concerning the 
proprietary rights -issues . Sherzer did not dispute that DOJ was 
entitled under the contract to software in which it had unlimited 
rights. Instead, the letter explained that in performing the 
contract through a time sharing computer inslaw had been using a 
version of PROMis that contained proprietary enhancements to which 
DOJ was not entitled. Sherzer said that inslaw was prepared to 
provide a copy of the contract version of PROMIS, but suggested 
that it would be in the government's interest to obtain the "latest 
version" of PROMIS, which was then being provided under time 

17 From what we have been able to determine at this point, the 
expense involved in producing an "unenhanced" version of PROMIS 
resulted from the fact that Inslaw did not maintain a version of 
PROMIS that contained only the U.S. Attorneys' offices 
enhancements, i .e. , the Pilot Project version plus the five BJS 
enhancements. Instead, Inslaw maintained only one VAX version of 
PROMIS, which contained both public domain and claimed proprietary 
software. Thus, to produce a "stripped down" version of PROMIS in 
which DOJ had unlimited rights would have required Inslaw to 
manually back each enhancement out of each module of the program. 

- 29 - 

sharing. Sherzer again said that inslaw would supply those 
enhancements at no additional cost if the government would agree 
"not to disseminate this enhanced and proprietary version of inslaw 
software beyond those offices already covered by the present 
contract, i.e., the Executive Office and the 94 U.S. Attorney's 
Offices . " 

While DOJ was considering Inslaw's limited dissemination 
proposal, Sherzer sent a letter proposing an escrow arrangement to 
resolve the proprietary rights dispute. Under this proposal. 
Inslaw would provide a copy of the software to an escrow, who would 
then be instructed to deliver the software to DOJ in the event of 
Inslaw's financial demise. 

Inslaw's escrow proposal caused internal debate at DOJ. 
Brewer and videnieks were opposed to the idea. videnieks, in 
particular, was opposed to any escrows, agreements, or 
modifications. His view was that Inslaw was required to provide 
DOJ with functional software in which the government had unlimited 
rights, and that it should be left to Inslaw to decide how it 
wanted to satisfy that obligation. ultimately, a middle ground 
prevailed within DOJ. Instead of an escrow arrangement, DOJ would 
propose a contract modification whereby the parties would mutually 
agree on a method for resolving the proprietary rights dispute. 

On March 18, 1983, videnieks wrote a letter to Sherzer 

proposing a contract modification in place of the escrow solution. 

videnieks outlined his alternative solution as follows: 

In lieu of the proposed escrow agreement which 
the department currently has under review, the 

- 30 - 

Government offers to agree that it will not 
disseminate or disclose the PROMIS software 
requested in the Contracting Officer's letter 
of December 6, 1982 beyond the Executive 
Office for United States Attorney and the 94 
United States Attorneys' Offices covered by 
the subject contract, until the data rights of 
the parties to the contract are resolved. We 
will do this in exchange for receipt of copies 
of all materials requested in the Contracting 
Officer's December 6 letter. The Government's 
agreement not to disseminate or disclose the 
PROMIS software pending resolution of the 
issues does not change the government's rights 
under the contract. 

Videnieks' letter went on to describe the proposed format for 
resolving the data rights dispute. Under Videnieks' proposal, 
inslaw was to identify its claimed proprietary enhancements and to 
demonstrate that those enhancements were developed at private 
expense and outside the scope of any government contract. DOJ 
would then: 

review the effect of any enhancements which 
are determined to be proprietary, and then 
either direct inslaw to delete those 
enhancements from the versions of PROMIS to be 
delivered under the contract or negotiate with 
Inslaw regarding the inclusion of those 
enhancements in that software. The Government 
would then either destroy or return the 
"enhanced" versions of PROMIS in exchange for 
the Government software including only those 
enhancements that should be included in the 
sof tware. 

in the letter videnieks acknowledged the importance of the data 
rights issue, and noted that it needed to be resolved "as soon as 
possible, but no later than the first PROMIS installation on 
Government Furnished Equipment." 

Sherzer and Inslaw found DOJ's alternative proposal 
acceptable, and On March 23 Sherzer sent Videnieks a draft contract 

- 31 - 

modification consistent with Videnieks' March 18 letter. On 
April 11, 1983, Inslaw and DOJ executed Modification 12 to the 

contract. The text of Modification 12 stated that: 

The purpose of this Supplemental 
Agreement is to effect delivery to the 
Government of VAX -specific PROMIS computer 
programs and documentation requested by the 
Government on December 6, 1982, pursuant to 

Article XXX- -Data Requirements, and to at this 
time resolve issues concerning advance 
payments to the Contractor. 

The modification went on to list the software to be delivered by 
Inslaw. As to DOJ's obligation, the modification said: 

The Government shall limit and restrict 
the dissemination of the said PROMIS computer 
software to the Executive Office for United 
States Attorneys, and to the 94 United States 
Attorneys' Offices covered by the contract, 
and, under no circumstances shall the 
Government permit dissemination of such 
software beyond these designated offices 
pending resolution of the issues extant 
between the contractor and the Government 
under the terms and conditions of contract No. 

JVUSA- 82 -C-0074; 

Pursuant to its obligation under Modification 12, Inslaw produced 
a copy of the VAX version of PROMIS on April 20, 1983. 

F. inslaw's Efforts to Identify the Proprietary Enhancements 
Prior to the execution of Modification 12 Inslaw had not 
specifically identified the proprietary enhancements that it 
claimed were contained within the VAX version of PROMIS. Pursuant 
to the resolution procedure outlined in videnieks 1 March 18 letter, 
and formalized in Modification 12, Inslaw made its first effort to 
identify the proprietary enhancements in an April 5, 1983, letter 
to videnieks. on April 12 Inslaw supplemented its April 5 letter 

- 32 - 

in response to videnieks' request for a clarification. These 
submissions described various changes Inslaw had made to PROMIS, 
and set forth Inslaw's "estimate" of what percentage of those 
changes were privately funded. Inslaw's submission did not include 
any primary materials, such as time sheets or change records. 

videnieks notified inslaw by letter on April 21 that its April 
5 and 12 submissions were inadequate. 18 videnieks told Inslaw that 
as to each enhancement it "must provide all information necessary 
to demonstrate that the change was developed both at private 
expense and outside the scope of inslaw's performance of any 
government contract . " 

Inslaw submitted a methodology that it thought addressed 
videnieks' concerns in a May 4, 1983, letter from Sherzer to 
videnieks. in that letter Sherzer noted that Inslaw's proposed 
methodology would require considerable effort on its part to 
retrieve various historical financial and technical documents. 
Sherzer therefore sought assurances from DOJ prior to undertaking 
such an effort that DOJ would accept the proposed methodology. 
Sherzer specifically asked DOJ in his letter to either accept the 
proposed methodology or to suggest whatever changes DOJ felt was 

videnieks' response to sherzer' s letter did not come for over 
a month. During that period videnieks asked Rugh to evaluate the 

18 A1 though videnieks was nominally the person dealing with 
Inslaw on this issue, he was relying almost completely on Jack 
Rugh, Brewer's deputy, and the contracting officer's Technical 
Representative, Mike Snyder, to evaluate Inslaw's technical 
proposals . 

- 33 - 

methodology. Rugh told Videnieks it was unacceptable. Videnieks 
and Rugh then considered a number of potential responses, one of 
which was to propose an acceptable methodology. In the end, 
Videnieks and Rugh decided simply to reject inslaw' s proposed 
methodology and say nothing more. in a June 10, 1983, letter to 
Sherzer, Videnieks notified Inslaw that the proposed methodology 
was unacceptable. As to Sherzer' s request that DOJ either approve 
the methodology or suggest revisions, the letter stated simply that 
"tt]he Government is in a position to do neither." The letter said 
it was Inslaw's burden to prove the existence of proprietary 
enhancements, and that if inslaw did not do so by July 11, 1983, 
DOJ would be "forced to conclude that all 251 changes/enhancements 
. . . are to be delivered to the government for its unrestricted 

Sherzer wrote an additional letter on July 21, 1983, stating 
that Inslaw was preparing to submit further documentation and 
information regarding the enhancements in early September. That 
approach was also rebuffed by Videnieks, and Inslaw submitted no 
other documentation regarding its claimed proprietary enhancements 
to DOJ during the life of the contract. 

In August of 1983 Inslaw began the first installation of 
PROMIS on one of the government furnished Prime computers . In 
order to be able to run PROMIS on the Prime computers Inslaw ported 
the VAX version of PROMIS, which contained the alleged 
enhancements . Inslaw could have ported the prime version of PROMIS 
from the Pilot project version of PROMIS (that contained no 

- 34 - 

allegedly proprietary enhancements) , but, according to trial 
testimony, chose to complete the port from the VAX version because 
it was easier and less expensive for ins] aw. inslaw continued to 
install this same version in the other 19 designated U.S. 
Attorneys’ offices. As far as we can tell, there were no specific 
discussions between inslaw and DOJ about what version of PROMIS 
should be installed on the Prime computers. 

inslaw filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the bankruptcy 
laws in February 1985. The PROMIS implementation contract expired 
in March 1985. After the contract with inslaw expired, DOJ self- 
ins tailed the Prime version of PROMIS that had been supplied by 
inslaw in at least 23 additional United States Attorneys' offices, 
inslaw claims that it first learned of these self -installations in 
September 1985. Inslaw then wrote to DOJ, complaining that any use 
of the allegedly enhanced PROMIS beyond the 20 sites at which 
inslaw installed PROMIS was a violation of Modification 12. 
Shortly thereafter Inslaw presented to DOJ a claim for $2.9 million 
dollars, which Inslaw characterized as the license fees owing from 
DOJ’s unlawful use of the software. DOJ denied this claim. Inslaw 
did not appeal this denial of the license fees to the Contract 
Appeals Board. instead, it filed an adversary proceeding in its 
bankruptcy case, claiming that DOJ's unauthorized use of the 
software, as well as certain other conduct by DOJ, violated the 
automatic stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. in July 1987 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason held a two week trial on the liability phase 
of Inslaw's claims. Judge Bason ruled in favor of Inslaw, finding 

- 35 - 

that DOJ fraudulently converted inslaw's software, and ultimately 

ordered DOJ to pay damages of approximately $6,8 million. 

G. The Effect of The Bankruptcy Court's Findings 

in investigating the various allegations made by Inslaw, we 

have given consideration to the findings and conclusions of 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason in the adversary proceeding. In re INSLAW , 

83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. Ct. D.D.C. 1988). The judgment entered on those 

findings was affirmed by the district court, 113 B.R. 802, 19 but 

ultimately reversed on jurisdictional grounds by the Court of 

Appeals for the D.c. Circuit, united States v. INSLAW , 932 F.2d 

1467 (D.C. Cir. 1991), cert , denied , 112 S. Ct. 913 (1992). The 

Court of Appeals held that the automatic stay of the Bankruptcy 

Code did not reach the use of property in a party's possession 

under a claim of right at the time the bankruptcy was filed. 

Accordingly, the appellate court held: 

As the bankruptcy court had no jurisdiction to 
hear the claims asserted under [the Bankruptcy 
Code] , we reverse the district court and 
remand the case with directions to vacate all 
orders concerning the Department's alleged 
violations of the automatic stay and to 
dismiss INSLAW's complaint against the 
Department . 

The question of the weight to be given Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason's findings has been a subject of some controversy. The two 

“Contrary to the impression created by the Investigative 
Report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, the District Court 
did not review the evidence de novo and adopt as its own the 
findings made by the Bankruptcy Court, instead, the district court 
reviewed the Bankruptcy Court's findings of fact under the familiar 
"clearly erroneous" standard. 113 B.R. at 814 (citing Bankruptcy 
Rule 8013) . 

* 36 - 

Congressional committees that have investigated Inslaw's 
allegations have accorded Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings 
different weight. 

While Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings were still subject to 
appeal, the Permanent Subcommittee on investigations of the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs issued a Staff Study 
investigating the Department's treatment of Inslaw. In general, 
the Subcommittee did not attempt to reexamine Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason’s rulings and "treated the Court's findings and conclusions 
as valid judicial decisions unless and until overturned within the 
judicial system." The Staff Study makes clear, however, that the 
Subcommittee felt free to reexamine the Bankruptcy Court's findings 
when it believed necessary. 

Although issued more than a year after the D.c. Circuit Court 
of Appeals' reversal of Bankruptcy Judge Bason's judgment, the 
House Committee on the Judiciary took a different approach. The 
House Committee Report seems to accept as conclusively true all of 
the findings and conclusions of Bankruptcy Judge Bason. Indeed, 
the Committee Report criticizes DOJ for taking the "spurious 
position" in litigation pending between DOJ and Inslaw before the 
Department of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals ( "DOTBCA" ) 20 
that it was not bound by those findings. On August 27, 1992, 
however, DOTBCA had issued an opinion that agreed with DOJ's 
position that Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings were a "nullity." 

20 The contract disputes between the parties were presented to 
DOTBCA pursuant to the provisions of the Contract Disputes Act 
because DOJ has not established its own board. 

- 37 - 

As DOTBCA noted, the Court of Appeals' reversal rendered the 
Bankruptcy Court's findings without any binding effect. A vacated 
judgment has no preclusive effect either as a matter of collateral 
or direct estoppel or as a matter of the law of the case. Indeed, 
in any subsequent litigation between Inslaw and DOJ in all 
likelihood Bankruptcy Judge Bason's findings would not even be 
admissible in evidence, much less binding upon DOJ. 

This is not to denigrate the seriousness of the charges made 
by Inslaw or the effort made by Bankruptcy Judge Bason in preparing 
his findings. We have considered the Bankruptcy Court's findings, 
but we have not regarded our inquiry as confined by those findings 
and conclusions. Instead we have considered those findings in the 
light of the evidence, produced at trial or otherwise, and made our 
own assessment of the weight of the evidence, including the 
credibility of the witnesses we interviewed. 

as is apparent elsewhere in this report, we disagree with 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason's assessment of the evidence in several 
important respects. Unlike Bankruptcy Judge Bason, we are 
unwilling to make blanket adverse assessments about the credibility 
of virtually every witness associated with DOJ. Nor do we 
universally credit all Inslaw's witnesses as unfailingly accurate, 
truthful, and unbiased. Consequently, particularly with respect to 
our assessments of the motivation, purpose, and basis for the DOJ's 
handling of the contract with Inslaw, we have reached conclusions 
that are in many instances different from those reached by 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason. 

- 38 - 



Perhaps the most serious allegation made by Inslaw is that 
high-level DOJ employees, including Attorney General Meese, 
conspired with Earl Brian to steal Inslaw's software and to destroy 
Inslaw. ? The purpose of this alleged conspiracy was to bring 
financial benefit to a company called Hadron, Inc., in which Brian 
had both a direct and indirect financial interest. 21 As originally 
set out in an affidavit authored by William Hamilton, the Hadron 
conspiracy theory postulated that DOJ wanted to force inslaw into 
liquidation so that Hadron could buy Inslaw's assets, after which 
DOJ would award Hadron a "massive sweetheart contract." The theory 
has evolved over time. Inslaw has since presented testimony from 
witnesses who claim that DOJ employees actually delivered copies of 
Inslaw's proprietary software to Brian and Hadron before Inslaw's 
bankruptcy. According to these witnesses, Brian was involved in 
various covert intelligence operations, and DOJ officials gave 
Brian and Hadron copies of PROMIS to reward Brian for the covert 
role he played in the so-called "October Surprise" conspiracy. 22 

21 Earl W. Brian is a physician by training. He served as a 
combat surgeon in Vietnam, and later was a member of the faculty of 
the University of Southern California. He left medical practice, 
and served as California's Secretary of Health and Welfare under 
then Governor Reagan in the early 1970s. (Edwin Meese was also a 
member of Reagan's staff at that time). After leaving government, 
Brian began working in the areas of business and investment. He 
founded an investment company called Biotech Capital Corporation, 
now known as Infotechnology, Inc. Both Brian and Biotech owned 
stock in Hadron in the early 1980s. 

22 We note that both the House Task Force to Investigate Certain 
Allegations Concerning the Holding of American Hostages By Iran in 
19 80 (the "October Surprise Task Force") and Special Counsel to the 

(continued. . . ) 

- 39 - 

We are not the first to investigate the allegations that upper 
level DOJ employees conspired to destroy inslaw and to reward Earl 
Brian and Hadron. In September 1989 the Staff of the Senate's 
Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations of the Committee on 
Governmental Affairs completed its more than year-long 
investigation into DOJ's handling of its contract with Inslaw. 
After reviewing thousands of documents and interviewing numerous 
witnesses, the Staff of the Senate Subcommittee concluded that it 
could find "no proof of any connection between Brian or Hadron and 
the Department with regard to the INSLAW contract." 23 Because of 
the seriousness of the allegations, we nonetheless undertook an 
independent review of evidence surrounding the alleged conspiracy 
to benefit Earl Brian. We not only reviewed materials obtained by 

22 ( . . . continued) 

Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Subcommittee on Near Eastern 
and South Asian Affairs ("Senate Special counsel") recently 
released reports finding no credible evidence to support the 
allegations that members of the 1980 Ronald Reagan campaign staff 
negotiated to delay the release of the American hostages in Iran. 

23 The Committee On The Judiciary of the House of 
Representatives also investigated Inslaw's allegations regarding 
Hadron and Brian. In its report, the House Committee made no 
specific findings about these allegations, other than to note that 
they had been made. The House Committee Report called the 
allegations about Brian's role "intriguing ... but without the 
requisite degree of causation and factual convergence necessary to 
draw conclusions at this time into potential wrongdoing in the 
Inslaw matter." Although we admit some difficulty in interpreting 
this phrase, we understand it to mean that the House Committee's 
investigators, like the Staff of the senate subcommittee, found 
insufficient evidence on which to base any finding of wrongdoing by 

- 40 - 

the Senate Staff, 24 but independently interviewed witnesses and 
searched files as part of our own investigation of these 
allegations, we found that the evidence offered by inslaw falls 
into two categories: "Direct proof" in the form of statements from 
witnesses claiming to have personal knowledge of Earl Brian's role 
in the conspiracy to steal PROMIS, and "indirect proof" in the form 
of statements from witnesses who, although they generally do not 
purport to have any knowledge of an attempt by Brian or Hadron to 
obtain inslaw's assets, nonetheless provide evidence that William 
Hamilton believes supports his hypothesis that DOJ was attempting 
to award a "sweetheart deal" to Hadron, we address these two types 
of evidence in turn. 

A. The Claimed Direct Evide 

we have interviewed ye4n<»vimials whom inslaw officials 

and others have identified as having personal knowledge of the 

activities of Earl Brian in connection with the distribution of 

PROMIS software: ^ pursuant to 

Material 0mitt p ele) 

Fed* ft* * none of these 

individuals provided credible evidence that Earl Brian, Hadron, or 

any other Brian affiliate, was involved in theft, conversion, or 

distribution of Inslaw's proprietary software. 

24 The House Committee to date has not provided us any of the 
evidentiary material it obtained during its three year 

- 41 - 

1 . Michael Riconosciuto 

Michael Riconosciuto can fairly be described as the key 
witness against Brian. Riconosciuto has claimed, among other 
things, that he personally met with Brian, that he received a copy 
of PROMIS from Brian, that he personally performed alterations to 
PROMIS software so that Brian and others could sell PROMIS 
internationally, and that he is personally aware of various 
entities to which altered PROMIS was distributed. Given the 
breadth and specificity of Riconosciuto ' s allegations, we devoted 
considerable effort to trying to determine whether there existed 
any evidence to corroborate these claims. We interviewed not only 
individuals whom Riconosciuto identified as having knowledge of his 
activities, but also people who would have known about these events 
had they taken place as described. We begin with a summary of the 
specific allegations made by Riconosciuto. 

a. Summary of Riconosciuto »s Allegations 
During our investigation we reviewed various statements 
attributed to Riconosciuto. We identified four occasions on which 
Riconosciuto had made statements concerning Inslaw and PROMIS, 
where we could determine with a high degree of accuracy exactly 
what Riconosciuto had said on that occasion. Three of those 
statements were under oath and transcribed. The remaining 
statement was recorded in notes made by the person to whom the 
statement was made: William Hamilton. 25 

2s We are aware of a number of press reports attributing various 
statements to Mr. Riconosciuto. We have not placed primary 

(continued. . . ) 

• 42 - 

(i) Riconosciuto 1 s Calls To The Hamiltons 

As best we can determine, Riconosciuto’ s first statements 
about PROMIS were made in the Spring of 1990. On May 18, 1990, a 
reporter for one of Lyndon LaRouche's publications called William 
and Nancy Hamilton. The reporter told the Hamiltons that a month 
earlier Riconosciuto had told him (the reporter) that "the INSLAW 
mess at the Justice Department is related to a decision by Ronald 
Reagan to provide a financial reward to Earl Brian for an 
intelligence contribution to the 1980 election." The reporter then 
completed a conference call and introduced the Hamiltons directly 
to Riconosciuto. 26 

According to the Hamiltons' records of that call, Riconosciuto 
said that he and Earl Brian were both hired as consultants to a 
company called Wackenhut Research, Inc.j which Riconosciuto 
described as a subsidiary of Wackenhut Security Corporation. 
Riconosciuto said that he and Brian travelled together to Iran in 
1980 and paid a $40 million bribe to certain Iranians in order to 
prevent the release of American hostages prior to the November 1980 
election. He said that he personally handled the electronic funds 
transferring work in cqnnection with these bribe payments. 
Riconosciuto also claimed that Brian mentioned inslaw or PROMIS "as 
though Brian were a principal" in the company. Riconosciuto said 

25 { . . . continued) 

reliance on these reports because we have no way of judging the 
accuracy of the attributions. 

26 lnslaw provided us with copies of two memoranda to file 
(dated May 18 and June 28, 1990), in which William and Nancy 
Hamilton summarize their telephone call with Riconosciuto. 

- 43 - 

that PROMIS was the payoff to Brian for his contribution to the 
Iran effort, and said that he (Riconosciuto) still had a copy of 
the PROMIS source code. Riconosciuto said a computer company he 
owned (which he referred to as TCS Software of Houston, Texas) had 
integrated PROMIS into a report generation software product that 
was marketed by TCS to government agencies. Riconosciuto said that 
he could provide the Hamiltons with various pieces of evidence to 
support these allegations, including: (1) photographs of him and 
Earl Brian together in Iran in 1980, (2) copies of his and Brian's 
1099 forms from Wackenhut Security, (3) his passport reflecting a 
1980 trip to Iran, and (4) a copy of the VAX version of PROMIS. 

(ii) Riconosciuto's March 21# 1991 Affidavit 

On March 21, 1991, Riconosciuto executed an affidavit for 
submission in connection with Inslaw's adversary proceeding in the 
Bankruptcy Court. In that affidavit Riconosciuto claimed that he 
had been Director of Research for a joint venture between wackenhut 
Corporation and the Cabazon Indians of Indio, California. He 
described the Wackenhut - Cabazon joint venture as one engaged in the 
development and manufacture of certain military type materials, 
which were then intended to be sold to foreign governments and 

According to Riconosciuto 's affidavit, Peter videnieks was a 
frequent visitor to the Cabazon Indian reservation, and a "close 
associate" of Earl Brian. He then went on to describe the role he, 
videnieks, and Brian played in converting and distributing stolen 
Inslaw software: 

- 44 - 

In connection with my work for Wackenhut, 

I engaged in some software development and 
modification work in 1983 and 1984 on the 
proprietary PROMIS computer software product. 

The copy of PROMIS on which I worked came from 
the U.S. Department of Justice. Earl w. Brian 
made it available to me through Wackenhut 
after acquiring it from Peter Videnieks, who 
was then a Department of Justice contracting 
official with responsibility for the PROMIS 
software. I performed the modifications to 
PROMIS in Indio, California; Silver Spring, 

Maryland; and Miami, Florida. 

The purpose of the PROMIS software 
modifications that I made in 1983 and 1984 was 
to support a plan for the implementation of 
PROMIS in law enforcement and intelligence 
agencies worldwide. Earl w. Brian was 
spearheading the plan for this worldwide use 
of the PROMIS computer software. 

Some of the modifications that I made 
were specifically designed to facilitate the 
implementation of PROMIS within two agencies 
of the Government of Canada: the Royal 
Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) and the 
Canadian Security and Intelligence Service 
(CSIS) . Earl w. Brian would check with me 
from time to time to make certain that the 
work would be completed in time to satisfy the 
schedule for the RCMP and CSIS implementations 

The proprietary version of PROMIS, as 
modified by me, was, in fact, implemented in 
both the RCMP and the CSIS in Canada. It was 
my understanding that Earl w. Brian had sold 
this version of PROMIS to the Government of 

Riconosciuto ended his affidavit by claiming that he had been 
threatened by Videnieks. Riconosciuto said that he had a telephone 
conversation with Videnieks in February of 1991, during which 
Videnieks told him not to cooperate with the House Judiciary 
Committee's investigation. According to Riconosciuto' s affidavit, 
Videnieks said that if Riconosciuto cooperated with the Judiciary 

* 45 - 

Committee's investigation he would be "punished." The punishments 
allegedly outlined by Videnieks included the indictment of 
Riconosciuto for savings and loan fraud and for perjury. 

(iii) Riconosciuto 1 s Statement to Congress 

The House Committee Report indicates that Riconosciuto 
provided a sworn statement to Committee investigators on April 4, 
1991. we have not been able to obtain from the Committee a copy of 
Riconosciuto' s statement. There are references in the report, 
however, to certain statements attributed to Riconosciuto. 
According to the report, Riconosciuto told the Committee that he 
received a copy of the proprietary version of PROMIS from Brian, 
who had obtained it from videnieks. The report says Riconosciuto 
claims that someone (the report does not say who) loaded the PROMIS 
software into the trunk of Riconosciuto' s car during a luncheon 
attended by both videnieks and Riconosciuto. The report says 
Riconosciuto granted the Committee access to a storage facility 
containing computer tapes and documentation. The Committee then 
analyzed these tapes to determine if they contained any versions of 
PROMIS (presumably because Riconosciuto indicated that they would) . 
According to the Committee's report, their expert analysis of the 
tapes failed to provide any evidence that the tapes contained any 
versions of PROMIS. 

Finally, Riconosciuto told the Committee that the DEA had 
seized from him at the time of his March 29, 1991, arrest two 
copies of a tape recording he made of his conversation with 
videnieks, in which Videnieks threatened to "punish" Riconosciuto 

- 46 - 

for cooperating in the inslaw investigation. The report does not 
make clear whether Riconosciuto told the Committee that those were 
the only two copies of the tape that existed. 

(iv) Riconosciuto 1 s Testimony At His Trial 

The most recent statements made by Mr, Riconosciuto of which 
we are aware (outside of this investigation) were made at his trial 
for manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine, which took 
place in federal court in Tacoma, Washington, in January 1992. 
Riconosciuto testified at length about the alleged theft of PROMIS 
software at his trial because his defense to those drug charges was 
that he was being "set-up" by the government on the drug charges as 
punishment for his giving testimony about the Inslaw matter. 27 

In his trial testimony Riconosciuto said that he first learned 
of PROMIS while on the Cabazon reservation in Indio, California. 
He said that he had received three versions of PROMIS, two with 
enhancements and one without, and that he had received them from 
John Philip Nichols 28 when "Peter Videnieks showed up on the 
reservation. " Riconosciuto said that he had set up a VAX computer 
in a small mobile office that was behind the casino on the Cabazon 
reservation in order to work with the PROMIS software. He said he 
then worked with a lead programmer in supervising "programming 

27 The jury rejected Riconosciuto 1 s testimony, and convicted him 
on the charges of manufacturing and distributing methamphetamine. 
The trial judge sentenced Riconosciuto to 360 months imprisonment, 
which was the lowest available sentence under the applicable 
sentencing guidelines i 

28 Nichols was the non-Indian Administrator of the Cabazon' s 
affairs . 

- 47 - 

groups" that were developing modifications to PROMIS. When asked 
when these modifications to PROMIS were taking place, Riconosciuto 
twice stated that it was in the period of late 1981 to early 1983. 
He said that during this period he was commuting between Indio, and 
Hercules and Santa Rosa, California, where he had other technical 
developments ongoing. Riconosciuto described Earl Brian as someone 
he would often see in regards to the PROMIS software when 
Riconosciuto was at the Cabazon reservation. 

Riconosciuto testified that in February 1991 he had received 
a message on his answering machine from someone named Peter, and 
that the message instructed him to "be at a certain restaurant at 
a certain time and wear, you know, a yellow shirt." Riconosciuto 
said he went to this restaurant and was met there by some people, 
all of whom he did not know, except for one man he recognized as a 
person named "Norm. " Riconosciuto said that Norm and the others 
then placed a call and gave him the phone. Riconosciuto said he 
expected to hear a person named Peter zokosky on the phone, but 
that he didn't recognize the voice at the other end of the call. 
According to Riconosciuto, when he told the people who had placed 
the call that he didn’t recognize Zokosky' s voice, one of those 
people said, "It's no wonder, this is Videnieks." 

Riconosciuto then testified that Videnieks told him that he 
"was making some people nervous," and that there might be problems 
for Riconosciuto in connection with a savings and loan matter and 
his wife's custody battle with her former husband if Riconosciuto 
didn't "just wise up ... and forget about what [he] was talking 

* 48 - 

about. " 

Riconosciuto said that he understood Videnieks comments to 
be a reference to the prospect of Riconosciuto testifying in 
connection with the House Committee's then ongoing investigation. 

Riconosciuto testified that he had made a tape recording of 
this February 1991 call from videnieks. 29 He said that the DEA 
agents that arrested him had seized two copies of that tape. He 
said that the original of the tape still existed, but that he was 
"not sure" where it was. 

Riconosciuto also claimed that an associate of his had turned 
over computer tapes to the House Committee under Riconosciuto' s 
"partial" direction. Riconqsciuto said those tapes contained 
"information related to PROMIS software and other financial 

b. The Inconsistencies Within The Allegations 
Before reviewing the results of our investigation, it is 
important to note that Riconosciuto ' s various accounts of his role 
in the alleged theft of PROMIS have not remained constant. He has 
been inconsistent both in his descriptions of from whom he received 
the software, and in his descriptions of when and where he altered 
the software. Also, it appears that the circumstances of his 
meeting videnieks have not always been described in the same way. 

in his affidavit, Riconosciuto said that he had received a 
copy of "the proprietary PROMIS computer software product" from 
Earl Brian. It is clear from the affidavit that Riconosciuto is 

29 He did not explain how he managed to tape record a call 
placed by someone else from a public restaurant. 

- 49 - 

referring to a single copy of software. (" The copy of PROMIS on 
which I worked came from the U.S. Department, of Justice. Earl 
Brian made it available to me through wackenhut after acquiring it 
from Peter Videnieks. In the House Committee Report there also 
is a reference to a single incident, where "enhanced PROMIS" was 
loaded into the trunk of Riconosciuto' s car. By the time of his 
trial, however, Riconosciuto was claiming that he had received 
three versions of PROMIS, and that he received "them" from John 
Philip Nichols. This testimony clearly is not consistent with the 
affidavit, and from what we can tell is inconsistent with 
Riconosciuto' s statement to the House Committee. 

Riconosciuto also has varied in his descriptions of when and 
where he altered the PROMIS software. In his affidavit he said 
that during "1983 and 1984" he "performed the modifications to 
PROMIS in Indio, California; Silver Spring, Maryland; and Miami, 
Florida." At trial, however, he described himself as a supervisor 
of a lead programmer and programming teams , and mentioned only work 
done in Indio, California, in a mobile trailer behind the casino on 
the Cabazon reservation. He also testified at trial about when 
these alleged modifications took place: 

Q: And how long did it take you to perform these 

enhancements to the software? 

A: I was working on this for approximately a year 

and a half. 

Q: Between what times would that have been? 

A: From late 1981, it was November 1981, into the 

early part of '83. 

- 50 - 

Riconosciuto then went on to describe some night vision and heat 
transfer technology that he was working on, and that he took back 
down "to the cabazon reservation in the form of, you know, a 
business joint venture." He was then asked about the timing of 
his work on this other technology: 

Q: Is this about the same time that this PROMIS 

software is being --? 

A: This is in 1980 and '81 and '82 this is all 


Q: This is all happening simultaneously? 

A: Yes. 

These statements directly contradict Riconosciuto* s claim in his 
affidavit that the work was done in 1983 and 1984. The change in 
timing is significant. Riconosciuto' s statement that he started 
work on PROMIS in late 19 81 and finished in early 1983 is 
inconsistent with the undisputed facts concerning the EOUSA 
contract. It is undisputed that Inslaw did not produce a copy of 
enhanced PROMIS to DOJ until April 20, 1983. Indeed, Inslaw did 
not even enter into the EOUSA implementation contract until March 
of 1982. it would have been physically impossible for anybody from 
DOJ to produce anything but a public domain version of PROMIS in 
November 1981. 

Immediately after Riconosciuto testified that his work on 
PROMIS was going on simultaneously with other projects (during 
1980, 1981 and 1982), he was asked about where he was working 

during the period that he claimed to be working on the PROMIS 
conversion and the other technologies: 

- 51 - 

Q: So your focus wasn't totally on the PROMIS 

software at this time. You were doing other 

A: Absolutely. I was spread thin. 

Q: Without going into what each of these various 

ventures were, state the ventures you were 
involved in at that period of time? 

A: Well, we had a small mining company up in 

Grass Valley where we had our pilot plant 
equipment for recovery technology going. we 
had a small pilot plant going in Hercules 
[California] at our facility there. we had 
Hercules Research and the Interprobe joint 
venture, we were developing prototypes for a 
high voltage power supply. And I was involved 
with -- I was responsible for all the 
development work at Sonoma engineering and 
research on the night vision system and on a 
small satellite dish communications package. 

Q: So all this is going on at the same time as 

the PROMIS software is being enhanced? 

A: Right. I was working between the facility at 

Hercules, the facility in Santa Rosa, and the 
facility in Indio on the Cabazon reservation. 

And I was, you know, flying -- there was an 
airport at concord [California] , which was 
just five minutes away from where we were at 
Hercules, and, you know, I was on a weekly 
basis, I was making the round robin. 

Q: How much of that time would you be devoting on 

the Cabazon reservation? 

A: I would say roughly a quarter of my time at 

that time. And I would say roughly half of my 
time at Hercules and -- no, about a quarter of 
my time at Hercules and the balance of my time 
between the Santa Rosa facility and other 
miscellaneous projects. 

Thus, when asked directly about where he was working during the 
period he was converting PROMIS, Riconosciuto failed to mention 
Silver Spring, Maryland, and Miami, Florida, two of the three 
places where he had claimed in his affidavit that he converted 

- 52 - 

PROMIS. In fact, Riconosciuto did not mention Maryland or Miami 
anywhere in his testimony about PROMIS at trial . 30 

Neither in his initial calls to the Hamiltons nor in his 
affidavit did Riconosciuto identify where he first met Videnieks. 
According to the House Committee Report, he told them that he first 
met Videnieks at the Picatinny Arsenal, which is in Dover, New 
Jersey. This part of his story also changed at trial, however. 
The following exchange took place on direct examination of 

Q: Have you met Peter videnieks? 

A: Yes I have. 

Q: On how many occasions? 

A: At least a dozen occasions. 

Q: where was the first place you met him? 

A: In Indio, California. 

c. Results Of Our Investigation 

We, of course, spoke directly with both Earl Brian and Peter 
Videnieks. Each of them has categorically and under oath denied 
all the allegations made by Riconosciuto about them. They both 
stated that they had never met Riconosciuto, or each other, and 
that they had never been to Indio, California, either to the 
Cabazon reservation or to the Cabazon's offices within the city. 

30 ln addition, the Hamiltons' memoranda of their call from 
Riconosciuto indicate that Riconosciuto claimed that his Houston 
based computer company modified PROMIS. We cannot tell from those 
memoranda, however, if Riconosciuto was specific about where the 
alterations took place. At trial he made no mention of any 
alteration of PROMIS in Houston, or of a role played by his Houston 
based company. 

- 53 - 

We found both men to be credible witnesses, both in their demeanor 
and in the substance of their statements. 

We then interviewed a number of people whom Riconosciuto 
identified as having knowledge of the activities involving PROMTS 
at the Cabazon reservation. Included within that group are Peter 
Zokosky, A. Robert Frye, John Philip Nichols, 31 and Robert Nichols. 

We also interviewed Art welmas {the former Tribal Leader of the 

Cabazon Band of Mission Indians) and his wife, Sam Cross {retired 

Material Omitted Pursuit tn 
Chief of the Indio Police Department), p «_■ v> 0 

M trim. Jr. b(e) 

.Fed* ' Pursuan ‘ t and a number of other individuals, 

■ted. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 

in order to determine whether it was likely, or even possible, that 
Riconosciuto and others were involved with altering PROMIS at the 
Cabazon reservation. The evidence we have compiled to date 
suggests that: {1) Riconosciuto was in fact in Indio, California 

during the early 1980s; (2) Riconosciuto did work with John Philip 
Nichols and the Cabazons; and (3) the Cabazons did enter into a 
joint venture with wackenhut Corporation. That is where the truth 
in Riconosciuto' s story stops. The evidence contradicts 
Riconosciuto’ s testimony about PROMIS, and suggests that there were 
absolutely no activities undertaken by wackenhut, Riconosciuto, or 
the Cabazons that had anything to do with PROMIS or any other 
computer software. 

31 we spoke to John Nichols for a brief period in his home. He 
was not expecting us, and was not comfortable (in light of his past 
criminal problems, apparently) having an extended interview without 
his lawyer present. He was, however, willing to comment freely 
about Riconosciuto and the allegations he is making. 

- 54 - 

(i) The Wackenhut -Cabazon Joint Venture 

The Cabazon Band of Mission Indians is a very small tribe 
located in Indio, California, which is just east of Palm Springs. 
As of 1981 there were approximately 30 voting members of the tribe. 
Arthur Welmas was the Tribal Chairman at that time. A non- Indian 
man, John Philip Nichols, was the Tribal Administrator and managed 
the business affairs of the tribe. Most of the reservation is 
located alongside the interstate in Indio. During the early 1980s 
the only building located on the reservation was a casino building. 
Behind the casino was a small mobile trailer of the type usually 
found on construction sites. The trailer was used as a small 
office for the Cabazons and the casino operation. 

During early 1981 the Cabazons formed a company known as 
Cabazon Security Corporation ("CSC") . According to A. Robert Frye, 
CSC solicited capabilities statements from a number of major U.S. 
security firms. Frye, who was then President of Wackenhut 
Services, Inc. ("Wackenhut") 32 , responded on behalf of Wackenhut. 
Wackenhut was interested in working with the Cabazons because CSC, 
as a qualified minority contractor, would be eligible to obtain 
government contract work pursuant to various set-aside programs . 
Negotiations went forward with Frye participating on behalf of 

32 wackenhut Services, Inc. is a subsidiary of Wackenhut 
Corporation. Wackenhut Corporation is a publicly traded firm that 
provides security and other support services to industrial and 
governmental entities worldwide. The firms described by 
Riconosciuto in his call to the Hamiltons (Wackenhut Research, Inc. 
and wackenhut Security, Inc.) do not exist. 

- 55 - 

wackenhut, and John Nichols conducting the negotiations on behalf 
of the Cabazons . 

In April of 1981 Wackenhut entered into a joint venture 
agreement with CSC. The agreement was signed by Frye on behalf of 
wackenhut, and Tribal Chairman Art welmas on behalf of CSC. The 
joint venture agreement indicates that it was the primary purpose 
of the joint venture to "qualify for, bid on, and obtain government 
guard service contracts." Through Frye's testimony and a review of 
wackenhut' s files we identified two government security contracts 
on which the joint venture bid, but which it did not receive. 

Early on in the joint venture John Nichols indicated a desire 
to have the joint venture engage in the sale of night vision 
goggles and rifle scopes to foreign governments. We found within 
Wackenhut 's files various documents that demonstrate the efforts 
Nichols was making to market this night vision equipment to 
individuals identified as representatives of the governments of 
Guatemala and Honduras. It was Nichols' view that the Cabazon's, 
as a sovereign nation, were not subject to the usual export and 
import controls. 33 In furtherance of this sales effort, a 
demonstration of night vision equipment was held on the evening of 
September 10, 1981, at the Lake Cahuilla gun range in Indio, 

33 a review of Wackenhut 's files shows that they did not share 
Nichols' view. We found internal memoranda in which wackenhut 
personnel express their opinion that any sales of night vision 
equipment would have to obtain State Department approval. We also 
found copies of preliminary applications that Wackenhut filed with 
the State Department in anticipation of possible sales of night 
vision equipment. As far as we could tell, no sales were ever 
made . 

- 56 - 

California. That demonstration is discussed at length in the 
following section. 

Another area of possible business that the joint venture 
explored was the manufacture and/or sale of combustible cartridge 
casings for large caliber cannons. The Cabazons were introduced to 
the possibilities of this rather arcane area by Peter Zokosky. 

Peter Zokosky is the former President of a Coachella, 
California, company called Armtec Defense Products. Zokosky said 
that during the early 1980s Armtec was a single source supplier 
producing combustible cartridge casings for the United States Army. 
According to Zokosky, during 1981 he was retired from Armtec and 
was aware that the Army was looking for a second source supplier 
for the combustible casings. Zokosky says he then began having 
discussions with Nichols about the possibility of the Cabazons 
becoming that second source. Ultimately, Zokosky became an advisor 
to Nichols and the joint venture as they pursued the possibility of 
becoming a second source supplier. 

Zokosky said he thinks he first heard the name Riconosciuto 
from somebody at Wackenhut, although he cannot say who. 34 He said 
he first met Riconosciuto one day in July of 1981 when he went to 
see Nichols at Nichols’ office in Indio. He said that he does not 
know who introduced Riconosciuto to Nichols. Zokosky said that 

34 Zokosky also claims that it was he who first put Wackenhut 
in contact with Nichols. This claim is contradicted by other 
evidence we found. 

- 57 - 

Riconosciuto appeared scientifically oriented, and that he and 

Nichols took him when they went to visit the Picatinny Arsenal . 35 

The Picatinny Arsenal is located in Dover, New Jersey. it 
offices the U.S. Army Armament Research & Development Command, 
Large Caliber Weapon Systems Laboratory. zokosky and the other 
people from the joint venture travelled to the Arsenal to meet with 
Dr. Harry Fair and an Army project officer named R. Scott Westley. 
zokosky knew both these men from the time he worked at Armtec, and 
knew that both could be helpful to the joint venture in its efforts 
to establish a second source combustible cartridge production 
facility on the Cabazon reservation. The meetings at the Arsenal 
were set up to discuss with Fair and Westley both the technical and 
administrative challenges of establishing a successful operation. 

Frye's recollection of meeting Riconosciuto roughly comports 
with Zokosky' s. Frye says he first met Riconosciuto on a trip to 
the Picatinny Arsenal. Frye believes this trip was in May of 1981. 
zokosky agrees that there was a trip to the Arsenal in May 1981, 
but he believes that Riconosciuto was not on that trip. zokosky 
says that Frye actually met Riconosciuto on a second trip to the 
Arsenal in October 1981. We do not believe that this disagreement 
as to the dates is material. 

35 Notably, neither Nichols nor zokosky were employees of the 
joint venture. Indeed, the joint venture had no employees at any 
time. The only individual employed by Wackenhut was Frye. We 
found no evidence to support Riconosciuto' s claim that he and Earl 
Brian were employed by Wackenhut or by the joint venture. Any 
business relationship Riconosciuto had was between him and Nichols 
and/or the Cabazons. 

- 58 - 

Frye and zokosky agree on a number of points that are relevant 
to this investigation, however. Both agree that they neither saw 
nor heard about Earl Brian in connection with the joint venture. 
Both agree that they never saw Riconosciuto conducting any computer 
operations. Both agree that they never saw any large computers or 
computer facilities anywhere on the reservation or in the Cabazon 
offices during this period. 

We also interviewed Art Welmas, who was the Tribal Chairman 
during the time of the joint venture, and his wife, welmas and his 
wife both said they never saw or met anyone named Earl Brian at the 
reservation, and that they never heard the name Earl Brian 
mentioned by Nichols, Riconosciuto, or anyone else at the 
reservation. They also told us, as did everyone we talked to, that 
the Cabazons had no large computers during this time period, either 
in the mobile trailer behind the casino or in the offices in the 
city of Indio. 36 

Sam Cross, the Chief of the Indio Police Department during the 
years Riconosciuto was in Indio, told us that he had personally 
been in the mobile trailer behind the Cabazon' s casino, which 
Riconosciuto described in his trial testimony. He was quite sure 
there never was any computer equipment in the trailer. He also 
told us that he made a point of staying aware of what was going on 

at the Cabazon reservation during that period, and that he never 

. . _ . . „ , „ . Iktsrial Omitted Pursuant 

heard any mention of the name Earl Brian. 

Fed. R. Crim. P. 

“witnesses told us that the Cabazons obtained small personal 
computers for word processing later in the 1980's. 

- 59 - 

Material Omitted to 
Fed. R. Criui. 

Considering the extremely small size of the Cabazon 
reservation, if there had been any computer software modification 
project going on at the reservation, we are confident these 
witnesses would have known about it. 

John Nichols was emphatic that Riconosciuto' s allegations 
concerning PROMIS are fabricated. He said that there never was any 
computer equipment around the reservation or the tribal offices, 
and that he had never heard of Earl Brian or any of his companies 
prior to Riconosciuto' s allegations . 37 

In summary, we were not able to find any witness who could 
even corroborate that Riconosciuto had access to computer equipment 
while on the Cabazon reservation, much less that he was involved in 
the modification and distribution of software for Earl Brian. In 
fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The evidence is that 
Riconosciuto was working with Nichols and the Cabazons in 
connection with their efforts to establish various quasi -military 
business opportunities for the joint venture. 

37 We should note that Riconosciuto has made numerous 
allegations throughout his life claiming that John Nichols is 
involved with various nefarious and criminal enterprises. While we 
do not assume the truth of these allegations, Nichols arguably 
would have a motive to call Riconosciuto a liar. We note, however, 
that everything Nichols told us was consistent with the great 
weight of the evidence we obtained from other sources. 

- 60 - 

(ii) The September 10, 1981 Weapons 

The House Committee Report said that it was aware of a 
Riverside California police report that indicated that Earl Brian 
was present at a shooting demonstration at the Lake Cahuilla gun 
range in Indio, California, on September 10, 1981. According to 
the police report, the purpose of the demonstration was to test a 
new night vision device (of the type that the joint venture was 
trying to market) . The report identifies by name 16 people who 
were present at the gun range (and four police officers who were in 
the surrounding hills conducting surveillance) , including Peter 
Zokosky, Michael Riconosciuto, John Nichols, Art Welmas, Sam Cross, 
and Earl Brian. Brian's presence at this demonstration would be 
significant because he has steadfastly denied ever having been to 
the Cabazon reservation, or ever having met Riconosciuto or any one 
affiliated with the cabazons. 

We located the report to which the Committee referred. It is 
a singularly unusual document. It is a four page report on a 
"Special Operations Report" form, under the heading "Subject" it 
lists "Cabazon Indians." The title of the report is "Nicaraguans 
and Earl Brian at Lake Cahuilla - 9/10/81." The typing date of the 
report, however, is ten years later, on "10/10/91." Although the 
word "intelligence" appears at the top of the first page, from a 
quick reading of the report one is given the impression that it is 
a surveillance report. This results, in part, from the fact that 
the report lists no informants or sources, or in any other way 
indicates that • the information in the report is something other 

- 61 - 

than a law enforcement officer's observations. Also, the report 
contains various license plate numbers and automobile registrations 
for the cars that were observed at the demonstration, just as one 
would expect to find in a regular police surveillance report. 

We were intrigued by this report, and thought it might be the 
key to our finding evidence that would corroborate Riconosciuto. 
Such was not the case. What we found was that all the information 
in that report, save for the license plate numbers and the 
registrations, came from Riconosciuto. 

The report was prepared by Gene Gilbert, an investigator for 
the Riverside, California, District Attorney's Office. we 
interviewed Gilbert. He told us that he prepared the report in 
1991 after interviewing Riconosciuto in jail. He said that the 
purpose of the interview was to find out if Riconosciuto could 
provide any information about an unsolved murder that happened in 
Indio in 1981. He said that he had obtained the license plate and 
registration information from Dave Baird, a former Indio police 
officer who was present at the demonstration, and who had saved 
this information over the years . 

The Riverside County District Attorney's Office was not 
pleased with all the attention this report had brought to them. 
The problem was that the report had been leaked, and virtually 
every reporter interested in the Inslaw case had a copy of it, as 
did many private citizens. 38 When we met with Gilbert he told us 


Material Omitted I'urs' to 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 

• 62 - 

words to the effect of "if I had known what a stir it would cause 
I would have left Earl Brian's name out, because he has nothing to 
do with the murder investigation." We found it difficult to 
believe that the mention of Earl Brian's name was coincidental. 
For example, we asked Gilbert why he put Earl Brian's name in the 
title of the report. He said it was because Brian was a new name 
to the investigation. When we pointed out that there were a lot of 
names in the report that were new to his investigation, Gilbert had 
no explanation as to why their names were not in the title. We 
also never received an explanation as to why Gilbert did not 
mention Riconosciuto in the report as the source of the 
information, or why Gilbert created a separate report concerning 
everything else Riconosciuto told him in the interview. 

Gilbert told us that after he began to get numerous inquiries 
from the press about the report, it became apparent to him that the 
name in the report that everybody was most interested in was Earl 
Brian. He said at that point he decided to see if anybody besides 
Riconosciuto would say Earl Brian was there. Gilbert then went to 
see Dave Baird, the officer from whom he had obtained the license 
plate numbers. After meeting with Baird, Gilbert prepared another 
report saying that he had shown Baird a photograph of Brian, and 
that Baird had identified Brian as being one of the individuals at 
the gun range on September 10, 1981. We went to see Dave Baird. 
That is not what he told us. 

Dave Baird is now a Riverside County Deputy Sheriff. During 
1981 he was an officer with the Indio Police Department. He told 

- 63 - 

us that shortly before September 10, 19 81, he was told by then 
Police Chief Sam Cross that City Manager Phil Hawes had arranged 
for a demonstration by the Cabazons to take place at the Lake 
Cahuilla gun range. Baird said that Hawes and Cross asked him to 
be present at the demonstration to determine if the Cabazons were 
engaged in any illegal activities involving automatic weapons. He 
said that when he went to the demonstration he was suspicious about 
what was going on, and so he memorized the license plates of some 
of the cars that were there. When the demonstration was over he 
checked the registrations of the plates he had memorized. We 
obtained a copy of the registration printouts he ran. 

One of the cars at the demonstration was a Rolls Royce that 
belonged to a real estate developer named Wayne Reeder. According 
to Riconosciuto (as reported in Gilbert's first report), Wayne 
Reeder arrived with Earl Brian. Baird said that he remembered that 
Reeder did arrive with someone, but that he didn't know who it was. 
Baird's handwritten notes that he made when he originally ran the 
registrations, however, refer only to Wayne Reeder in the Rolls 
Royce. 39 We then asked Baird if he had previously told 
investigator Gilbert that the other occupant was Earl Brian. Baird 
said he did not. Baird told us that Gilbert showed him a poor 
quality photocopy of a picture in a magazine, which Gilbert said 
was Earl Brian. Baird told us that the most he could say was that 
the person in the magazine photograph had the same general physical 

39 The absence of such an indication in his notes is 
significant, because his notes for other cars indicate that they 
had multiple occupants in them. 

- 64 - 

When asked 

characteristics as the person who was with Reeder . 40 

what those physical characteristics were, Baird said, "large, 

middle-aged, white, male." We then asked Baird if he thought he 

could identify Brian if we showed him a clear photograph of Brian 

taken in 1981. He said that the most he ever would be able to say 

was whether the person had the same general physical 

characteristics as the occupant of the car. This hardly 

constitutes an identification of Brian. _ rafted pursuant 

Material p. 

We also spoke with Peter Zokosky, red* ^ayne Reeder, 
John Nichols, and Art Welmas, all of whom were at the September 10, 
1981 demonstration. While they have somewhat conflicting 
recollections of the event 41 , they all agree on one point: Earl 
Brian was not there. When asked if there were any people at the 
shooting they did not know, they mentioned only some unidentified 
Spanish speaking men that Nichols had invited, all of whom were 
Hispanic and do not fit Brian's description. We also talked to 
Scott Westley of the Picatinny Arsenal, who Riconosciuto identified 
as being there. He absolutely denies being at the demonstration. 
Given that Westley makes no attempt to hide the fact that he met on 

40 Given the nature of the identification attempted by Gilbert- - 
a one person photo "show-up" ten years after the witness saw the 
subject on one occasion, at dusk- -we suspect that even a positive 
identification by Baird would be inadmissible in court. 

41 For example, Reeder recalls that he had a date that night, 
and for that reason believes he came alone, zokosky also recalls 
Reeder having to get to a date that night, but says that he thinks 
he drove Reeder there, and that's why Reeder couldn't get to his 
date until the demonstration was done. It seems more likely that 
Zokosky is mistaken, given that Baird is quite certain he saw 
Reeder’s car there, and in fact "ran" Reeder's license plates. 

- 65 - 

occasion with the people from the joint venture, it seems he would 
have little motive to lie about whether he was at this 

In summary, Riconosciuto ' s allegation that Earl Brian was at 
the demonstration at the Lake Cahuilla gun range does not withstand 
scrutiny. The credible evidence is overwhelming that Brian was not 
there. Moreover, we obtained considerable evidence tending to show 
that Brian was in his New York office on September 10, 1981. we 
obtained a copy of Brian's personal calendar from 1981. In it is 

the handwriting of Brian's former personal assistant. The personal 

. . Material Omitted Pursuant to 

assistant's writing, Fed. p> 6{eJ 

indicates that Brian flew from Washington to New York on the 

afternoon of September 9, and that she (the personal assistant) 

ordered a limousine to take Brian between his New York office and 

his home on September 10. Brian's expense records, including an 

airline receipt for the trip from Washington to New York, indicate 

that the calendar is accurate for that week. 

(iii) Riconosciuto' s March 29, 1991 Arrest 

Riconosciuto and others have suggested that the timing of his 
19 91 arrest on drug charges, coming as it did only eight days after 
he executed his affidavit in the Inslaw case, demonstrates that the 
government was retaliating against him for his testimony. As 
already noted above, Riconosciuto' s defense at his drug trial was 
that he was being framed by the government. 

We reviewed the entire transcript of Riconosciuto ' s trial, 
along with many of the DEA reports, and spoke with the Assistant 

- 66 * 

united States Attorneys who prosecuted the case against 
Riconosciuto. We are convinced beyond all doubt that there was 
absolutely no connection between Riconosciuto' s prosecution and his 
allegations in the Inslaw matter. The fact of the matter is that 
the case that resulted in Riconosciuto ' s arrest and prosecution 
began as a local drug investigation by Washington State 
authorities. As part of that local investigation a small time 
me thamphet amine dealer began to cooperate with the police. It was 
only after the local authorities determined that the supplier of 
the cooperating drug dealer was distributing on a large scale, that 
they decided to call in the Seattle office of the DEA to assist in 
the investigation. There is no evidence that anybody from 
Washington, D.C., either from DOJ or elsewhere, had anything to do 
with the prosecution of Riconosciuto in Tacoma. 

In addition, the evidence against Riconosciuto at trial was 
overwhelming. The DEA in that case captured Riconosciuto 
delivering me thamphet amine on videotape on more than one occasion. 
The testimony also established that Riconosciuto was running a 
large methamphetamine lab at the property where he was living. 
Riconosciuto testified that the case was a set up, that the DEA had 
altered the videotapes to make it appear that he was where he 
wasn’t, that the government had altered telephone records, and that 
his lab was only for mining metals, not for making drugs. It is 
not surprising that the jury rejected this testimony. It was as 

- 67 - 

unbelievable then as it is now. 42 Even the judge commented at 
sentencing that he was not sure whether Riconosciuto could tell 
fact from fiction. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6{e) 

42 Claiming that he is the victim of a frame up is nothing new 
to Riconosciuto. When he was arrested, tried, and convicted on PCP 
charges in the early 1970s, Riconosciuto ' s defense was that someone 
had planted the PCP on him. 

- 68 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 

•Fed. fi. Grim. p. 6(e) Riconosciuto (along with two local 

gadflies) filed a lawsuit purporting to challenge the authority of 
this investigation. Included within the bizarre allegations of the 
lawsuit were claims that I was involved in various organized crime 
murders and that one of the FBI agents assigned to the case had 
murdered the journalist Danny Casolaro. Riconosciuto also claimed 
that my staff had threatened to kill him, and that he and his 
family were in danger. 


Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 

<3 Riconosciuto' s lawsuit was subsequently dismissed by the 
district court as patently frivolous. Riconosciuto v. Bua , No. 92 
C 6217 (U.S.D.C. N.D. 111.) 

- 69 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., H.. Crim.. P.. 6(e), 

- 70 - 

Based on 

Mate J i J al i )niitted Pursuant 



Fed. R. Crim. P. 6(e) 

dealings with the Congress, the Hamiltons, and reporters, we do not 
believe that Riconosciuto in fact has any of the evidence he claims 
to have about PROMIS. 

Purs uant to 
Fed., R* .Grim. p. 6(e) 


Riconosciuto was out of prison for almost a year after his initial 
call to the Hamiltons. During that period he never produced the 
1099 forms, the photographs of him and Earl Brian in Iran, or the 
version of PROMIS he told the Hamiltons that he would give them. 
Riconosciuto also has had enough contact from prison with people on 
the outside that he was able to arrange for the House Committee 
investigators to get access to what he claimed at trial was 
software tapes containing PROMIS. Congress, too, came up empty- 
handed . 

in analyzing Riconosciuto' s allegations we have attempted to 
focus on the substance of his claims and whether they are supported 
or contradicted by other evidence. We cannot entirely ignore 
certain general credibility issues, however. Riconosciuto was 
involved with hallucinogenic drugs at least as far back as 1972, 
when he was convicted on a PCP charge. In addition to that charge 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed* R., .Grim., p., 6(e). 

and his 1992 drug conviction, NCIC records indicate he also has 
burglary and bail jumping convictions from the early 1970s. 

Most people who know Riconosciuto told us that he displays a 
high degree of familiarity with scientific and technical concepts. 
None of the people we talked to, however, could confirm the 
extraordinary claims Riconosciuto makes about his past exploits. 
He claims, for example, to have workejd with the CIA, to have 
developed a radio detonator device used to overthrow the Allende 
government in Chile, to have patented various revolutionary 
devices, to have recovered computer data from computers damaged 
during the overthrow of the Shah, to have personally been involved 
in handling the so-called "October Surprise” payments, and to have 
convinced certain organized crime members associated with Tony 
Accardo {a now- deceased head of the Chicago mob) not to commit a 
murder. We came across no credible witness who could confirm any 
of this. 

In conclusion, we found Riconosciuto to be a totally 
unreliable witness in connection with the allegations he has made 
about the alleged theft of PROMIS software. Riconosciuto ' s story 
about PROMIS reminds us of a historical novel; a tale of total 
fiction woven against the background of accurate historical facts. 
For example, it is true that there was a Wackenhut-Cabazon joint 
venture, and that there was a demonstration in September 1981 at a 
gun range in Indio. The overwhelming weight of the evidence, 
however, is that Earl Brian had nothing to do with either of these 
events. Riconosciuto* s efforts to place Brian at the Cabazon 

- 72 - 

reservation and at the center of a conspiracy to steal PROMIS do 
not withstand any level of scrutiny. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., B.. Crim. P. 6{e) 

2. Ari Ben-Menashe 

Ins law also has claimed that Ari Ben-Menashe has personal 
knowledge of Earl Brian's distribution of inslaw 1 s PROMIS software. 
Based on our investigation, we conclusively reject that assertion. 

We met with Ben-Menashe on a number of occasions 

Material Omitted Pursuant to Ben-Menashe makes a number 

'' v Fed., R.j Crim.. P. 6(e) 

of extraordinary claims, most of which are not subject to 
corroboration. One thing Ben-Menashe absolutely does not say, 
however, is that he has any information about DOJ or Earl Brian 
distributing Inslaw's software. To the contrary, the story Ben- 
Menashe now tells involves what he says is a different PROMIS 
program, software that is not Inslaw's. Ben-Menashe claims that 
Earl Brian has been travelling around the world peddling software, 
also called PROMIS, that was developed not by Inslaw, but by the 
United states National Security Agency (NSA) . 

a . Ben-Menashe 's Previous Allegations 

Inslaw submitted to the Bankruptcy Court two affidavits 
executed by Ari Ben-Menashe. In the first affidavit, dated 
February 17, 1991, Ben-Menashe claimed to have been personally 

present at a 1987 meeting of the External Relations Department of 
the Israel Defense Forces, "during which Dr. Earl W. Brian of the 
United States made a presentation intended to facilitate the use of 

- 73 - 

the PROMIS computer software." Ben-Menashe' s affidavit states that 
Brian said at that meeting that he owned the rights to PROMIS, and 
that Brian had been allowing the CIA, the NSA, DOJ, and the 
"Israeli intelligence communities" to use PROMIS since 1982. 
According to this affidavit, in 1987 Brian consummated the sale of 
PROMIS to the Israeli government "for internal use as well." 
Finally, in his first affidavit Ben-Menashe claimed that in 1989, 
in Chile, he was told by a Carlos Carduen that Carduen had brokered 
a sale of PROMIS by Earl Brian to a representative of Iraqi 
Military intelligence. 

Ben-Menashe' s second affidavit, dated March 21, 1991, 
describes a 1982 meeting Ben-Menashe says he had with Rafael Eitan, 
who he says was the Israeli Prime Minister's Anti -Terrorism Advisor 
at the time. Ben-Menashe ' s affidavit describes that meeting as 

in a meeting that took place in December 
1982 in Mr. Eitan' s office in the Kirya in Tel 
Aviv, Israel, Mr. Eitan told me that he had 
received earlier that year in the United 
States, from Mr. Earl W. Brian and Mr. Robert 
McFarlane, PROMIS computer software for the 
limited use of the [Israeli Defense Force's] 

Signals Intelligence unit for intelligence 
purposes only. Mr. Eitan stated on this 
occasion, and on earlier occasions as well, 
that he had special relationships with both 
Mr. Brian and Mr. McFarlane. 

According to the House Committee Report, investigators for the 
Committee interviewed Ben-Menashe in May 1991. The report states 
that Ben-Menashe gave testimony that was essentially consistent 
with his affidavits. Specifically, Ben-Menashe is reported to have 
said that "in 1982, Dr. Earl Brian and Robert McFarland [ sic ] , the 

- 74 - 

former Director of the National Security Council, provided the 
public domain version of iNSLAW's PROMTS software to the Israeli 
Government's special intelligence operation Defense Forces." 
(emphasis added) The Report says that Ben-Menashe described the 
1987 sale by Earl Brian of "Enhanced PROMIS" to the Israeli 
intelligence community and the Singapore Armed Forces. According 
to the Committee Report, Ben-Menashe also claimed to have 
information about the sale of a "public domain" version of PROMIS 
by the Israeli government to the Soviet Union, and of the sale by 
Earl Brian of "the enhanced version" (apparently of the public 
domain software) to Canada. The House Committee Report does not 
identify any witnesses or documents corroborating Ben-Menashe' s 
testimony about PROMIS. 

b. Our investigation 

In our meetings with Ben-Menashe he told a different story. 47 
Ben-Menashe told us that from 1974 through 1977, he was in the 

47 We confined our investigation to Ben-Menashe ' s claims that 
related to DOJ misconduct in the use or distribution of PROMIS. As 
noted by the senate Special Counsel's Report, Ben-Menashe ' s claims 
have been wide-ranging. According to the Special Counsel's Report, 
in addition to the October Surprise allegations investigated by the 
Senate and those relating to Inslaw and PROMIS, 

Ben-Menashe claims to have had a role in the Mossad's 
kidnapping of a renegade Israeli nuclear technician, 
Mordecai Vannunu; in the Israeli raid on Entebbe Airport 
in Uganda in 1976; and in the Israeli attack on Iraq's 
nuclear reactor in 1981. Ben-Menashe says he was the 
first person to leak the iran-contra scandal to the 
press .... 

We did not have the time, manpower or mandate to investigate each 
of Ben-Menashe' s claims about his adventures. 

- 75 - 

Israeli military assigned to the Iranian Desk of the Signals 
Intelligence Unit. In that position, he had access to a software 
program called "Milon" (phonetic) , which he stated was a computer 
program used to compile dictionaries. Ben-Menashe said that the 
Israeli government used the program to develop a Hebrew -Farsi 
dictionary and to assist in the translation of Farsi documents by 
his unit. He stated that the United States NSA developed the 
Milon program to translate Vietnamese into English. According to 
Ben-Menashe, William Hamilton worked on this program while employed 
at the NSA, long before the formation of Inslaw. 48 

Ben-Menashe told us in no uncertain terms that he has 
absolutely no knowledge of the transfer of ins law’s proprietary 
software by Earl Brian or DOJ. According to Ben-Menashe, the 
" PROMIS" program he referred to in his previous affidavits and 
statements is not Inslaw's PROMIS. Instead, he says, the "PROMIS" 
program delivered to Israel by Brian was developed and enhanced by 
NSA. Ben-Menashe was adamant that this "other PROMIS" was 
developed by NSA independent of any Inslaw program and years prior 
to the formation of Inslaw. He also insisted that he has never 
said otherwise to the Hamiltons, to Congress, or to anyone else. 
When we asked Ben-Menashe about Inslaw's PROMIS, he said he had no 
information that Inslaw's software was pirated by DOJ and no reason 

to believe that DOJ did anything improper with the PROMIS software 


4B We requested confirmation of this from NSA. NSA informed us 
that William Hamilton worked for NSA in the 1960s. Because 
Hamilton's personnel records had been purged, however, NSA was 
unable to tell us whether he had worked on or developed such a 
program while at NSA. 

- 76 - 

provided it by Inslaw. He was quite specific in saying that he did 
not believe that DOJ had distributed Inslaw’s software to any other 
person or entity. 

While these statements by Ben-Menashe appear to contradict 
everything Ben-Menashe has previously said on this subject, Ben- 
Menashe says no. According to Ben-Menashe, he simply let the 
Hamiltons and others ’'assume" that he was referring to Inslaw's 
PROMIS when he discussed the PROMIS program that he says Earl Brian 
distributed, even though in his mind he was referring to the 
different software program developed by NSA. Ben-Menashe said that 
he never affirmatively asserted that the software he was referring 
to was Inslaw’s PROMIS. 48 

* Purs hant to 

Fed., R. ; Crim. p. - 


Su We believe that the apparent contradiction in Ben- 
Menashe’ s statements is best explained by his own statement 
regarding his motivation in signing the Inslaw's affidavit. Ben- 

48 The House Committee Report clearly states that Ben-Menashe 
referred to "inslaw's PROMIS." Because we do not have a copy of 
the testimony Ben-Menashe gave to the House Committee, we cannot 
know whether he is now misstating what he told them, or whether the 
investigators misinterpreted what he said. 


Material Omitted Pursuant to 

-fed., R.j Crim. P. 6(e) Ben-Menashe also claimed that the 
Hamiltons had repeatedly urged him to sign affidavits that 
specif icallv referred to "Inslaw's PROMIS," but that he always 

Material Omitted Pursuant fj 

«. Cria., X. s(ej 

- 77 - 

Menashe admitted that one of the reasons he failed to clarify his 
statements was because he was preparing to publish a book about his 
various exploits and he wanted to make sure that his affidavit was 
filed in court and came to the attention of the public. 51 

In his book Ben-Menashe claimed to have knowledge of a complex 
web of foreign and domestic intelligence agencies that use the NSA 
developed PROMIS to gather intelligence from banks and governments 
around the world and to move moneys in payment for arms sales and 
other nefarious activities. According to Ben-Menashe, Israel 
installed a "trap door" in the NSA version of PROMIS. After the 
program was distributed worldwide by Earl Brian and others to 
various private and governmental users, the "trap door" allegedly 
permitted intelligence agencies to access the users' databases to 
obtain confidential information. Ben-Menashe claimed that by 
employing this "trap door" he had learned that friends and 
relatives of President Bush and other Administration officials were 

involved in the supply of arms to Iran for prpfJ.fe> ur s U aht to 

material Omrt e 

Although we requested, Fe&.> W 1IQ *- TSfen-Menashe for 

documentary evidence to support any of his allegations, and 
although he claimed to have access to such documents in safekeeping 

with a publisher in Australia, he failed to produce any documents. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
^ Fed„ £« £rim. J P., 6(e). 

51 The book was published in June 1992. 

- 78 - 

We were not disposed to conduct an international search of 

foreign governments and intelligence operatives on the basis of 

Ben-Menashe' s allegations. Even if one believes Ben-Menashe- -and 

we certainly are not sayingQ^^.^c^ 2 ptilif«'u©?^et§ no evidence of any 

Mater-2. Crim _ p. 6(e) . , 

wrongdoing by DOJ. Tea. n. he emphasized his lack of 

any knowledge and any information suggesting any distribution of 

Inslaw's software by DOJ. 

we did, however, conduct some investigation of Ben-Menashe' s 
allegations. Our investigative efforts revealed precious little 
evidence to corroborate Ben-Menashe' s story. Earl Brian, under 
oath, and Robert McFarlane, in a telephone interview, strenuously 
denied the entirety of Ben - Menashe ' s allegations, each 
categorically denying any improper connection to the Israeli 

52 The House October Surprise Task Force extensively examined 
allegations Ben-Menashe has made about the subject of its inquiry. 
The Task Force concluded that, although Ben Menashe did work for 
the External Relations Department of Israeli Military Intelligence 
between 1977-1987, "the evidence . . . shows that he worked the 
entire time as a translator of materials of relative insignificance 
and low levels of classification." The Task Force Report states 
that "[c]ontrary to Ben-Menashe' s claims, his records also reveal 
he had no responsibilities involving contacts with the CIA or the 
intelligence service of any other country." Furthermore, the Task 
Force Report noted that Rafi Eitan, an Israeli official who was the 
alleged source of Ben-Menashe' s information in the second affidavit 
Ben-Menashe provided to Inslaw, was examined by the government of 
Israel at the Task Force's request. According to the Task Force 
Report, Eitan stated that he does not know Ben-Menashe, has never 
met Ben-Menashe,- and heard of him only after Ben-Menashe began 
making his allegations in 1991. 

After a thorough investigation, the Task Force described Ben- 
Menashe' s testimony variously as "totally lacking in credibility," 
"fabricated," "demonstrably false from beginning to end," "riddled 
with inconsistencies and factual misstatements," and "a total 
fabrication." The Task Force specifically found "no evidence to 
substantiate Ben-Menashe' s allegations regarding a trip to Iran by 
Robert McFarlane and Earl Brian." 

- 79 - 

government or to any version of PROMIS. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., B.. Crim.. P. 6{e) 

We also contacted NSA and asked whether it used or developed 
any program called PROMIS. NSA informed us that it used a 
commercial off-the-shelf software package that was purchased from 
Computer Corporation of America. In 1974-1975, six years before 
the incorporation of Inslaw, NSA developed a database with query 
search and report features in the M204 language. This particular 
database is called PROMIS, an acronym for Product Related On-line 
Management Information System. {NSA explained that its 
intelligence reports are referred to within NSA as the agency's 
"product . " ) 

NSA has informed us that NSA’s PROMIS has no relationship to 
Inslaw's PROMIS and NSA believes that the use of the same name for 
the different software is purely coincidental. NSA's PROMIS is 
written in a language called M204, a language different from COBOL, 
the language used for Inslaw's PROMIS. NSA's PROMIS serves 
different purposes than Inslaw's PROMIS, and it is used with a 
different database. 

NSA's General Counsel's office informed us that many personnel 
in the agency know of the existence of NSA's PROMIS and that over 
the years many employees with knowledge of PROMIS have moved on to 
employment with other agencies in the government and with private 

- 80 - 

employers. It is not particularly surprising, therefore, that Ben- 
Menashe could learn of its existence. 53 

we are unwilling to credit the rest of Ben-Menashe' s story 
based on his knowledge of the existence of the NSA program. 
Frankly, Ben-Menashe ' s story is too incredible to rest on so small 
a foundation. It has been convincingly denied by two witnesses 
whose statements we believe. We have good reason to doubt the word 
of a man who implies that he allowed the use of his plainly 
misleading affidavits in order to promote his book's sale. 

Finally, we note also that according to Ben-Menashe' s story, 
Israel received "PROMIS" from Earl Brian and Robert McFarlane 
during or before December 1982. Yet in December 1982 DOJ had 
available to it only public domain versions of PROMIS. Inslaw did 
not deliver an allegedly enhanced version to DOJ until April 1983. 

It is clear to us that Ari Ben-Menashe offers no 

support for the allegation that DOJ and Earl Brian conspired to 
steal and distribute the software in which Inslaw claims 
proprietary rights. 

3 . Charles Hayes 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
" Fed* E„ Crinu P.. 6(e). 

Hayes is a Nancy, Kentucky, salvage dealer who was contacted 
by William Hamilton after Hayes* own disputes with DOJ were 

53 We received this information by telephoning the NSA. The 
General Counsel's office indicated that NSA has not distributed 
NSA's PROMIS outside the agency because it is configured to operate 
on NSA's database and would not be useful to a user outside the 

- 81 - 

reported in the press. In statements to William Hamilton and to 
investigators of the House Committee, Hayes has made a variety of 
allegations about the alleged distribution of Inslaw's enhanced 
PROMIS software. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
^ Ped„ Grim., p„ 6{e). 

- 82 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 

' Fed- B* Cri m „ 6(e) 

The House committee, which has also heard Hayes* accusations 
about various subjects related to Inslaw, called Hayes* testimony 
"intriguing," but noted that Hayes had failed to provide any 
documentation corroborating his charges. The Committee noted that 
even William Hamilton regarded as "highly improbable" Hayes' claim 

- 83 - 

that a local U.S. Attorney's office had sold him surplus word 
processing equipment that contained enhanced PROMTS. The 
Committee's examination and test of computer disks turned over by 
Hayes (and that allegedly contained enhanced PROMTS) established 
them to be nothing more than training programs for the word 
processing equipment. Hayes' promises to provide information that 
would establish that enhanced PROMIS was in use by the Canadian 
government were never fulfilled. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
^ Fed* E* Grim* p„ 6(e), 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fea„ B* .Grim* P. w 6(e). 

B. The Claimed Circumstantial Evidence Of A Conspiracy 
In addition to the witnesses who claim to have personal 
knowledge of Earl Brian's efforts to obtain and distribute PROMTS, 
Inslaw has identified a number of witnesses whose testimony, inslaw 
officials believe, provides circumstantial evidence of a conspiracy 
involving Earl Brian and DOJ officials. An affidavit submitted by 
william Hamilton in 1989 in support of Inslaw's Petition for a Writ 
of Mandamus succinctly describes various events (and the witnesses 
with knowledge of those events) that Inslaw says support its 
conspiracy theory. Later, in memoranda submitted to us, Inslaw's 
attorneys again summarized the evidence that Inslaw says can be 
obtained from these witnesses. 

Inslaw's allegations are not readily susceptible to 
summarization, but the gist of these allegations is that beginning 
at least by 1983, a company controlled by Earl Brian, Hadron, Inc., 
attempted to obtain Inslaw's PROMIS software or control of Inslaw 

- 85 - 

through a variety of different stratagems. According to Inslaw, 
Hadron had ties to DOJ through Earl Brian's supposed influence with 
the Reagan administration and prior contacts with DOJ's contracting 
officer, Peter Videnieks. Under inslaw’s theory, presumably 
because of Brian's political influence. Hadron was able to induce 
Lowell Jensen, through various subordinates, to engineer disputes 
with Inslaw which eventually drove inslaw into bankruptcy, 
inslaw's allegations detail a series of events which, it claims, 
establish the plot to obtain its software. 

We tried 


interview virtually 




wi tnesses 

identified in 


Hamilton's affidavit 





submitted by Inslaw's lawyers as supporting these claims. As is 
described in detail in the following pages, we found that many of 
the witnesses deny making the statements attributed to them by Mr. 
Hamilton. In other cases, the individuals confirmed the particular 
statements attributed to them, but then admitted that they were 
only repeating things that other people had told them, in the end, 
we found that much of the supposed "circumstantial evidence" 
identified by Inslaw does not in fact exist, and that what does 
exist is woefully insufficient to support a finding of a conspiracy 
or, indeed, any connection between inslaw and PROMIS on the one 
hand, and Hadron or Earl Brian on the other. 

The following is a summary of the various alleged, occurrences 
that Inslaw believes support its allegation that DOJ officials 
conspired to steal PROMIS for the benefit of Hadron: 

- 86 - 

1 . 

The Alleged Call From Dominic Laiti 

In his affidavit, Hamilton states as follows: 

On April 20, 1983, about two weeks after 
[modification 12] and less than a month before 
the first sham contract disputes, Hamilton 
received a phone call from Dominic Laiti, 

Chairman of Hadron. Laiti told [Hamilton] . . 

. that Hadron needed the PROMIS software for 
federal government contracts that it expected 
to receive as a result of its political 
contacts . . . [with Edwin Meese] . Laiti said 
that Hadron intended to become the leading 
vendor in the United states of software for 
law enforcement and courts and that this was 
why it had recently bought SIMCON Inc (police 
software) and ACCUMENICS Inc (litigation 

support software) and why it was seeking to 
purchase Inslaw (court and prosecution 
software) . ... When [Hamilton] declined to 

meet with Laiti to discuss his [Laiti 1 s] 
proposition, Laiti said, "We have ways of 
making you sell." 

We interviewed Laiti. Laiti denied making the statements 
attributed to him by William Hamilton in Hamilton’s affidavit. 
Although Laiti does not recall ever calling Hamilton about Inslaw, 
he does not exclude the possibility that he may have called 
Hamilton to inquire about the company. He is quite certain, 
however, that he never made any threat about having "ways of making 
[Hamilton] sell." 

2 . The 1983 Laiti Trip To New York 
in his affidavit, Hamilton also describes a 1983 Hadron fund- 
raising trip to New York, which he claims was made for the purpose 
of raising capital to buy PROMIS. specifically, he stated: 

Paul Wormeli, former Vice President of 
Simeon, Inc., a Hadron subsidiary, and Marilyn 
Titus, former secretary at both Simeon and 
Hadron, [told] Inslaw [that] . . . Laiti, 

Wormeli and Brian met in New York in September 

- 87 - 

1983 to raise capital for Hadron. wormeli 
said that their aim was to raise $7 million 
for Hadron's expansion into criminal justice 
information systems. Titus, then secretary to 
wormeli, added that the purpose of the trip 
was to "raise capital to buy the court [i.e. 

PROMIS] software." wormeli also stated that 
he and Laiti met during this September 1983 
visit to New York with Mark Tessleman, then 
Vice President of Allen and Company, a wall 
Street Investment Bank, to discuss raising the 

We talked to all involved. They did not support Hamilton's 
thesis that this was a trip to raise money to buy PROMIS. 

a. Earl Brian 

Earl Brian denies any knowledge of any efforts by Hadron to 
buy Inslaw or to raise capital for that purpose. As described 
below, his denials are well corroborated. 

b. Dominic Laiti 

Laiti stated that he made a business trip to New York City in 
late 1983 to raise capital funding for a Hadron subsidiary, Simeon, 
which manufactured software products for public safety companies. 
Laiti was accompanied on this trip by Paul wormeli, a Simeon 
executive. Laiti said that on this trip a presentation was made to 
Allen and Company to obtain funding. Mark Kesselman was the Allen 
and Company executive with whom Laiti dealt. Kesselman made a 
subsequent trip to Simeon in Northern Virginia to review the 
company's operations. Laiti stated that the search for capital for 
Simeon had nothing to do with acquiring Inslaw or PROMIS. 

c. Paul Wormeli 

wormeli was the Vice President in charge of Product 
Development for Simeon. In 1982, Simeon was purchased by Hadron. 

- 88 - 

Dominic Laiti was president of Hadron at that time. Wormeli 
remained with Simeon for two years after the Hadron purchase, 
wormeli essentially confirmed what Laiti told us. 

wormeli said that he accompanied Laiti to New York City in an 
effort to raise money. Wormeli said that he and Laiti went to the 
office of Earl Brian, who was a stockholder and member of the Board 
of Directors of Hadron at that time. According to wormeli, it was 
apparent from this meeting with Brian that appointments had been 
set up with financial people to discuss funding for Simeon. 
Wormeli and Laiti then went to the office of Allen and Company 
where they met with Mark Kesselman and a young man whose last name 
was Allen. After this meeting at Allen and Company, Laiti and 
Wormeli also visited other potential sources of funding. 

Wormeli said that neither Laiti nor Brian ever discussed with 
him the acquisition of PROMIS or Inslaw, and that he does not know 
whether the money sought during the 1983 New York trip had anything 
to do with Inslaw or PROMIS. Laiti never mentioned PROMIS or 
Inslaw to him or at any of the New York meetings. 

Wormeli stated that he first became aware of the Inslaw 
problems with DOJ from reading newspaper articles. Wormeli knows 
William Hamilton from when wormeli worked at the LEAA. He said he 
likes Hamilton very much, respects him, and feels bad for him with 
respect to Inslaw's problems. While Wormeli is sympathetic to 
Hamilton's view of the matter, wormeli told us that he does not 
have any knowledge of a connection between Hadron and inslaw. 

- 89 - 

d. Marilyn Titus 

Titus worked for Simeon from September 1982 until January 
1984. Her title was Administrative Support Analyst. After leaving 
Simeon in January 1984, she worked for Hadron for four years. 

Titus told us that to her knowledge the only court -related 
software company in which Simeon/Hadron ever had an interest in 
purchasing was a Southern California company called Responsive 
Design. Titus said that she never heard any discussion at all 
about Hadron obtaining PROMIS software, and she does not believe 
she ever told William Hamilton that the purpose of the 1983 fund- 
raising trip was to raise capital to obtain PROMIS or inslaw. She 
also said that she was not present at or a participant in any 
conversations that Simeon or Hadron personnel had about inslaw, and 
that no one ever made a statement in her presence that indicated 
that Wormeli and Laiti attempted to raise capital to buy Inslaw, or 
that Hadron had any interest in acquiring inslaw or PROMIS. 
Further, she said no one made any statements in her presence that 
indicated they were contemplating any unethical or illegal 
activities to acquire PROMIS. 

e. Mark Kesselman 

We interviewed Mark Kesselman, who is employed by Citibank in 
Geneva, Switzerland, by telephone. Mr. Kesselman stated that he 
was formerly associated with Allen and Company in New York City, 
and resigned from that firm in February of 1984. In late 1983, 
Kesselman was asked by Charles Allen to assist Allen's nephew, 
Nathaniel Kramer, in an analysis of a company in Northern Virginia. 

- 90 - 

Kesselman did not recall the name of the company, but remembers 
that Dominic Laiti, Paul Wormeli and Robert Burke were executives 
of this company, and that this company was developing computer 
software for police patrol cars. Kesselman spent one day in 
Northern Virginia looking over this company. Kesselman does not 
recall any additional involvement with this company after that. 

As is apparent from our interviews of these people, Hamilton's 
affidavit, to the extent it speculates that Laiti traveled to New 
York to raise money related to Inslaw or PROMIS, is incorrect. Not 
only is there no evidence that Laiti 's 1983 trip to New York had 
anything to do with inslaw, there is no evidence from these 
individuals that Hadron or Simeon ever had any interest in 
obtaining Inslaw's software. 

3 . The 53rd Street Ventures Connection 
During 1984 Daniel Tessler managed a venture capital fund 
called 53rd Street Ventures. In his affidavit, Hamilton claims 
that Daniel Tessler is related to Alan Tessler, a partner in a law 
firm that represented Hadron, and that Daniel Tessler helped 
organize Hadron's efforts to "get" Inslaw: 

In December 1984, shortly before INSLAW's 
Chapter 11 filing, Daniel Tessler, the 

Chairman of 53rd Street ventures, came to 
INSLAW and tried to induce [the 

Hamiltons] ... to turn over to him the 
voting rights of their controlling interest in 
INSLAW common, stock. Daniel Tessler told 
Hamilton that neither 53rd street Ventures nor 
Hambro Venture Capital would attempt to help 
INSLAW raise capital and avoid possible 
disintegration unless . . . [the Hamiltons] 

turned over the voting rights of . . . [their] 
stock to him by the end of the business day. 

Daniel Tessler is a relative of Alan Tessler, 

- 91 - 

the senior partner in the New York City law 
firm of Shea and Gould responsible for Brian's 
and Hadron's mergers and acquisitions work. 

At a national venture capital meeting in 
Washington D.C., in May 1988, Patricia 
Cloherty, Daniel Tessler's wife and former 
business partner, told Richard D'Amore, an 
officer of Hambro International Fund, that she 
"knew all about" Brian's role in the INSLAW 

We could not find . anybody who could confirm any of the 
substantive allegations found in this paragraph. To the contrary, 
the individuals involved deny these allegations, 
a. Daniel Tessler 

Daniel Tessler told us that 53rd street Ventures, Inc., was 
formed in about 1976 as an investment company. The company took in 
capital from its investors /shareholders and invested that capital 
in high risk, high reward ventures. The investment company was 
originally managed by Patricof and Company Ventures . 

In about 1984, Patricof and Company ceased managing 53rd 
Street ventures Inc. At that time, Daniel Tessler and his wife, 
Patricia Cloherty, through their investment management company, 
Tessler & Cloherty, Inc. , assumed management of 53rd street 
Ventures, Inc. 

At the time Tessler and cloherty took over the management of 
53rd Street Ventures, Inc., the investment company had a $100,000 
investment in Inslaw, which represented less than 1% of the total 
value of the fund's portfolio. This investment had been made in 
about 1982, during the time that 53rd street Ventures, Inc., was 
under the management of Patricof and Company. Jonathan Ben Cnaan, 
who had been an employee of Patricof and Company, arranged for the 

- 92 - 

investment under the supervision of Patricof & Company. 53rd 
Street Ventures' investment in Inslaw resulted in 53rd Street 
Ventures’ ownership of about 1.2% of the total ownership of Inslaw. 

According to Tessler, he and Cloherty looked into the Inslaw 
investment after they assumed management of 53rd Street Venture. 
They determined that Inslaw had serious operating difficulties. 
They determined, from their inspection of the company and its 
records, that Inslaw could not meet its production obligations and 
was heavily in debt. At about this same time, Ed Goodman of Hambro 
International, another investor in Inslaw, asked Tessler to meet 
with William Hamilton to suggest to Hamilton ways that inslaw could 
deal with its cash flow difficulties and debt problems. 

Tessler met with Hamilton in late 1984 at the Inslaw offices. 
Tessler is not sure if there was only one meeting with Hamilton or 
others, or if they also spoke by telephone in connection with 
Inslaw's financial difficulties. Tessler does recall that during 
his discussions with Hamilton, Hamilton asked Tessler about 53rd 
Street Ventures investing additional capital in inslaw . Tessler 
denied that he ever tried to induce (or even suggested) to Mr. or 
Mrs. Hamilton that the Hamiltons turn over to him the voting rights 
of their controlling interest in inslaw common stock. According to 
Tessler, he did not tell Mr. Hamilton that 53rd Street ventures 
(and Hambro) would not help Inslaw raise capital and avoid possible 
disintegration unless the Hamiltons turned over the voting rights 
of their stock to Tessler by the end of the business day. Tessler 
maintained that he never sought control of the Hamilton stock. 

- 93 - 

Tessler stated that he discussed the issue of control with Hamilton 
only in the context of it being an issue with respect to future 
investments in Inslaw. According to Tessler, he only told Hamilton 
that investors were very unlikely to invest additional capital in 
inslaw if the company continued to be managed and controlled by the 
same people who were in charge of the company when it got into 
financial difficulties. In short, Tessler maintained that he never 
sought to gain control of Hamilton's stock and never gave Hamilton 
the "ultimatum" described in the Hamilton affidavit. 

Tessler told us that he does not know Earl Brian, Edwin Meese, 
Dominic Laiti or Lowell Jensen. Tessler told us that he never 
discussed- -or communicated in any way- -with Earl Brian, Edwin 
Meese, Dominic Laiti, Lowell Jensen or any employee/official of 
DOJ, the White House staff or the Reagan/Bush administrations, 
about 53rd Street Ventures' investment in Inslaw, Tessler' s 
conversations with William Hamilton, or the issue of 53rd Street 
Ventures putting additional capital into Inslaw. Tessler assured 
us that he has never had any dealing with Hadron, Simeon, or 
Biotech, and never discussed 53rd Street Ventures' investment in 
INSLAW with anyone from those companies. 

As to the claimed connection between Tessler and Earl Brian's 
lawyers, Tessler told us that he is not a relative of, and does not 
even know, Alan Tessler. Additionally, Tessler has had no dealings 
with the law firm of Shea and Gould, and had no discussions with 
that firm regarding 53rd Street Ventures' investment in inslaw. 

- 94 - 

Tessler told us that to his knowledge, his wife, Patricia 
Cloherty, has no knowledge of Earl Brian or any connection between 
Brian and Inslaw. Further, he said, Cloherty has never told him 
that she "knew all about" Brian's role in the inslaw matter, nor 
has she ever said words to that effect. 

b. Richard D'Amore 

Richard D'Amore is a partner in Hambro International Equity 
Partners ("Hambro") , Boston, Massachusetts. He stated that Hambro 
is a venture capital company in the business of investing in 
existing businesses. In 1983, Hambro invested approximately 
$400,000 in inslaw. D'Amore was placed on the Board of Directors 
of inslaw because Hambro was the lead investor. 

We showed D'Amore the statement attributed to him in the 
Hamilton affidavit -- namely, that Patricia Cloherty, Daniel 
Tessler' s wife and former business partner, had told D'Amore that 
she knew "all about" Brian's role in the inslaw matter. D'Amore 
told us that Cloherty never made such a statement to him, and that 
he never told Hamilton (or anyone else) that she did. D'Amore said 
that he does not know of any role played by Brian, or whether 
Cloherty knows of any such role. 

c. Patricia Cloherty 

Patricia Cloherty worked for Patricof and Company in New York 
from about 1970 until about 1977, when she was appointed by 
President Carter to be Deputy Administrator of the Small Business 
Administration ("SBA" ) . When she left the SBA in about 1980, she 
worked at Tessler & Cloherty, Inc., an investment management 

- 95 - 

company that she ran with her husband, Daniel Tessler. In February 
of 1988, Cloherty returned to Patricof and company, where she has 
been employed ever since. 

Cloherty' s description of the history of the 53rd Street 
Ventures' investment with inslaw is consistent with what her 
husband, Daniel Tessler, told us as described above. She said that 
she had no involvement with Inslaw until she and her husband took 
over management of 53rd Street Ventures in 1984. 

Cloherty said that she knows Earl Brian. She said she met 
Brian sometime in the 1980s, when they both served on the board of 
the National Association of Small Business Investment Companies. 
Cloherty met Brian at board meetings. Cloherty said that in 1990, 
Brian contacted Patricof and Company with a deal proposal regarding 
UPI . cloherty never met with Brian directly and sent an associate 
in the firm to look into the deal. Patricof and Company decided 
not to pursue the deal. This was the extent of Cloherty' s contact 
with Earl Brian. 

Cloherty told us that she has never heard of and has had no 
involvement with Hadron or Simeon. She does not know Dominic 
Laiti, Edwin Meese, or Lowell Jensen. Cloherty never discussed 
53rd Street Ventures' investment in Inslaw with Earl Brian, Lowell 
Jensen, Ed Meese, Dominic Laiti, or any officials or employees of 
DOJ or of the Reagan or Bush administrations. 

While Cloherty knows Richard D'Amore, she insists she never 
told Richard D'Amore (or anyone else) that she "knew all about 
Brian's role in the Inslaw matter." Indeed, Cloherty maintains 

- 96 - 

that she does not know anything at all about Earl Brian's 
connection, if any, to Inslaw. 

4 . The Jonathan Ben Cnaan Allegations 

Hamilton's affidavit also referred to a person by the name of 
Jonathan Ben Cnaan. According to the affidavit, 

Jonathan Ben Cnaan, an account executive 
with 53rd Street Ventures, a New York City 
venture capital firm that then had a small 
equity investment in Inslaw, described a 
meeting in September 1983 at 53rd Street 
Ventures with a "businessman with ties at the 
highest level of the Reagan Administration" 
who was eager to obtain the PROMIS software 
for use in federal government contract work. 

The meeting took place several months after 
the contract disputes with DOJ had emerged, 
and the businessman assured 53rd Street 
Ventures that INSLAW would never be able to 
resolve them. According to Ben Cnaan, the 
businessman was annoyed that [Hamilton] . . . 
had rebuffed an attempt earlier that year to 
buy INSLAW in order to obtain title to the 
PROMIS software. 

Earl Brian denied knowing Ben Cnaan and insisted that he is 
not the unidentified businessman who, according to the Hamilton 
affidavit, met with Ben Cnaan. 

We tried to find Jonathan Ben Cnaan. The number for Ben Cnaan 
supplied by Inslaw was disconnected with no forwarding number. We 
learned that Ben Cnaan had last been employed by Patricof and 
Company Ventures in New York City, and we went to the offices of 
that company and met with Office Manager Susan Thomas Smith. Smith 
told us that Ben Cnaan formerly worked for Patricof and Company but 
had left several years ago to start up a company called Axiom 
Capital. Smith believed that Ben Cnaan may have returned to 
Israel . 

- 97 - 

We went to the address of Axiom Capital in New York City but 
the company was no longer there and there was no forwarding address 
for the company available. 

we also asked Daniel Tessler if, as a result of his purchase 
of 53rd Street ventures, he could help us in our search for Ben 
Cnaan. He told us he had not had contact with Ben Cnaan in years 
and, like Smith, told us that Ben Cnaan had started a company 
called Axiom some time back. Tessler did not know if the company 
was still in business. He also thought that Ben Cnaan had probably 
returned to Israel. 

Although we would have liked to talk to Ben Cnaan, our 
inability to locate him does not preclude us from concluding this 
matter. Because it appears that Tessler, D'Amore, and Cloherty did 
not say what Hamilton claims they said, even if the attribution to 
Ben Cnaan were correct, there would be nothing to tie that claim to 
Hadron or Brian, since Brian denies it and Ben Cnaan himself did 
not refer to Brian {according to the affidavit) . 

5 . The Edward Hurley Overtures 

Hamilton's affidavit identified a statement allegedly made by 
a Hadron employee named Edward Hurley, in which Hurley supposedly 
stated that Hadron "wanted to acquire" PROMIS: 

In approximately June 1985, Edward 
Hurley, then a Hadron Vice President in charge 
of its criminal justice systems work, told 
Theresa Bousquin that he did not believe that 
INSLAW would be able to survive a Chapter 11 
and that Hadron wanted to acquire INSLAW’s 
"court software" to complement its law " 
enforcement software. Hurley resigned from 
Hadron in August 1985, the month after the US 
Bankruptcy Court issued a Confidentiality 

- 98 - 

Order sealing iNSLAW's proprietary and 
customer information from DOJ. The 
Confidentiality Order thwarted DOJ's covert 
efforts to liquidate INSLAW. in the fall of 
1985, Hadron divested itself of the law 
enforcement software that Hurley had earlier 
that year cited as a key part of Hadron's 
ambitions in the criminal justice field. 

Theresa Bousquin is a current INSLAW employee, having begun 
working for inslaw in August 1989. Prior to joining INSLAW, 
Bousquin was employed with Fairfax County, Virginia for a number of 
years. While employed there, she worked with the implementation 
and development of computer programs and systems for the county 
courthouses . 

Bousquin told us that in 1985 she interviewed for a position 
at Hadron. The interview was with Ed Hurley, who was a Hadron Vice 
President. During the interview, Bousquin mentioned to Hurley that 
she was offered a position at INSLAW. Hurley inquired why she did 
not accept this position, and Bousquin responded that she was 
concerned because INSLAW was in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy and she was 
not sure that INSLAW could survive. Hurley responded that he also 
doubted INSLAW could survive this bankruptcy. According to 
Bousquin, Hurley told her that INSLAW was the only real vendor for 
court systems, both in the product INSLAW had and in the manner in 
which INSLAW could respond to differences in the various courts and 
prosecutors' offices. She and Hurley agreed that INSLAW had good 
technology. Bousquin said that Hurley added words to the effect of 
"it would be nice to get one's hands on that software." Bousquin 
did not identify any statements Hurley made about any effort by 
Hadron to acquire INSLAW. . Instead, she told us that it was her 

- 99 - 

impression that Hurley was not doing anything active to acquire the 
INSLAW software, and that his remark about the software had been 
made in passing conversation. 

Again, a claim in the Hamilton affidavit about what somebody 
said proved inaccurate. Nothing about Bousquin's statement 
suggests an effort by Hadron to acquire INSLAW or PROMIS. 

6 . The Accumenics Contract Award 

In his affidavit, Hamilton states: 

A[n] . . . informant who fears reprisal 
told Inslaw that James L. Byrnes, a Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General in the Land and 
Natural Resources Division with close ties to 
Meese, spearheaded the award by DOJ in October 
1987 to a Hadron subsidiary of a $40 million 
computer services contract for litigation 
support in that Division. 

The award to which Hamilton apparently is referring in this 
paragraph is a contract awarded to a company called Accumenics. 
Mr. Hamilton and his attorneys refused to disclose to us the 
identity of the alleged informant. We then interviewed Mr. Byrnes 
in order to determine what role he played in the Accumenics 
contract, and what connection he had to Hadron. 

James Byrnes, who is currently an Administrative Law Judge 
with the Department of the interior, was employed by DOJ during 
1986 as an Associate Deputy Attorney General to then Deputy 
Attorney General Arnold Bums. In November 1987, Byrnes 
transferred to the Land and Natural Resources Division of DOJ. 
Byrnes explained that he had transferred to the Land and Natural 
Resources Division because he was very interested in environmental 
law and wanted to practice in a line division. 

- 100 - 

Byrnes said that he did not know that he had been named in 
Hamilton's affidavit. we then read him the allegations in the 
Hamilton affidavit, that Byrnes had "close ties to Meese" and had 
"spearheaded the award by DOJ in October 1987 to a Hadron 
subsidiary of a $40 million computer services contract for 
litigation support in that Division." Byrnes denied any knowledge 
of the awarding of such a $40 million computer services contract, 
and does not know if such a contract was, in fact, awarded. Byrnes 
further stated that he had no knowledge of, or contact with, 
Hadron, Simeon, Accumenics or any Hadron subsidiary. 

Byrnes told us that he recognized the name Earl Brian, but 
said that he had never met him. Byrnes denied that he now has or 
ever had "close ties" with former United States Attorney General 
Edwin Meese. According to Byrnes, he was interviewed by then 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General Arnold Bums and then Attorney 
General Edwin Meese when he was initially seeking employment by 
DOJ. After joining DOJ, Judge Byrnes was involved in personnel 
matters and often attended meetings where then Attorney General 
Meese was present. Byrnes described Meese as a friendly 
individual, and said that he has used Meese as a reference. Byrnes 
does not know, however, if Meese ever has been contacted as a 
reference for him. Byrnes told us that he never had any 
discussions with Meese about Inslaw or Earl Brian. 

7 . The Alleged Vi denieks /Hadron connection 

The Hamilton affidavit purports to identify a connection 
between DOJ’s Contracting Officer, Peter Videnieks, and Hadron: 

- 101 - 

John Schoolmeister, a former Customs 
Services program officer, told Inslaw that 
Videnieks, at the time he was hired as the 
PROMIS Contracting officer, was the 
Contracting Officer for two contracts between 
U.S. Customs Service and Hadron, Inc., and 
that videnieks came to know the Hadron 
management during the course of that 

John Schoolmeister told us that during the late 1970s he was 
employed by the Department of Customs. He said that he was 
employed by the Branch Chief of Engineering services and his main 
task was to support the field patrol offices with high technology 

According to Schoolmeister, Peter videnieks was an employee at 
Customs during the time Schoolmeister worked there. Schoolmeister 
said that he believed Videnieks to be a "by -the -book" contracting 
officer. Schoolmeister did not have a great deal of contact with 
videnieks at Customs, but knew him to be a contracting officer with 
Customs who later went to DOJ as a contracting officer. 

Schoolmeister said that videnieks had some dealings with 
Hadron while he was at Customs. According to Schoolmeister, Hadron 
had a number of contracts with Customs, but only two were handled 
by videnieks. Schoolmeister could not recall which two contracts 
Videnieks handled. Although Schoolmeister did not claim to have 
any personal knowledge of Videnieks ever meeting any particular 
person at Hadron, he said he believed that Dominic Laiti, president 
of Hadron, would almost certainly have met Videnieks because Laiti, 
according to Schoolmeister, "met everyone in government." 

- 102 - 

Schoolmeister could not recall any specific significant event 
occurring between Hadron and Videnieks. 

Videnieks told us that he does not recall being the 
contracting officer on any Hadron contract. Neither does Videnieks 
ever recall visiting Hadron, or meeting Hadron management. 
Videnieks told us that during 1978 to 1981 he worked primarily as 
a supervising contracting officer at the Customs Service, and that 
it was possible that one of the contracting officers he supervised 
administered a Hadron contract. 

We attempted to determine whether Videnieks in fact ever 
worked on a Hadron contract. Hadron's records show that during the 
time Schoolmeister says Videnieks "must have" met Laiti, two Hadron 
subsidiaries had contracts with the Customs Service. Videnieks was 
not the Contracting Officer on either of these contracts, and his 
name does not appear in Hadron's records regarding those contracts. 
We determined that Videnieks did supervise the contracting officers 
in these two procurements, but Videnieks has no recollection of 
these contracts and he is fairly sure that he never traveled to any 
vendor location (certainly not to Hadron) with those subordinates. 

We did find one connection between Videnieks and a Hadron 
subsidiary, but it is extraordinarily tenuous. In December 1980 
Hadron purchased a company called Universal Systems, Inc. In 1978 
and 1979, prior to Hadron's purchase of Universal Systems, 
Videnieks had been the contracting officer on a contract between 
the Customs Service and Universal Systems. It is possible that 
Schoolmeister may have had this contract in mind. In any event, 

- 103 - 

the record is quite clear that Videnieks' involvement with 
Universal Systems ended prior to Hadron's purchase of that company. 

Whether or not videnieks in fact played some role in 
connection with a Hadron contract, we are persuaded from our 
discussions with him that those contacts were so insignificant that 
they have genuinely lapsed from Videnieks' memory. We find no 
evidence to support the claim that videnieks' connection with 
Hadron {if, indeed, there is any connection at all) was part of a 
conspiracy to obtain PROMIS. At most, Schoolmeister 's statement 
tends to show that it is possible that Videnieks once met Laiti. 
This, both by itself and in conjunction with the other evidence 
reflected in this report, falls far short of anything that could 
fairly be called evidence of a conspiracy. 

8 . The Attempted Purchase of Inslaw By SCT 

William Hamilton devoted approximately three pages of his 
affidavit to a discussion of a 1986 attempt to purchase Inslaw by 
a company called Systems and Computer Technology, Inc. ("SCT"). We 
have found so little evidence to support these allegations (and the 
inferences that they are supposed to support) that we believe it 
unnecessary to repeat these allegations verbatim here. 54 In 
general terms, Hamilton describes a "hostile" effort by SCT to 
purchase Inslaw in early 1986. He alleges that in "late 1985" DOJ 
officials met with SCT representatives "to encourage" the SCT 
takeover of Inslaw. Even Hamilton does not allege any direct 

54 We note that the House Committee similarly felt no need to 
comment on the allegations made by Inslaw about the attempted 
purchase by SCT. 

- 104 - 

evidence of a link between Brian and SCT. instead, he refers to 
two events that he apparently believes support the inference that 
Brian was behind SCT's efforts to obtain control of inslaw. First, 
he says that he has second-hand hearsay information that the 
investment firm Allen and Company bought 7.8% of SCT stock on 
behalf of an unnamed third party. Second, he says that one of the 
law firms that did work for Earl Brian also did work for SCT. 

To begin with, we note that it is difficult to understand how 
the allegations about SCT would fit into inslaw' s theory of a 
Hadron conspiracy. It is undisputed that as of late 1985 inslaw's 
implementation contract with DOJ was terminated and that DOJ was 
beginning to self -install PROMiS. Moreover, inslaw now claims that 
by 1985 Earl Brian had obtained enhanced PROMIS and was selling it 
to governments all over the world. Therefore, there would be no 
apparent reason for Brian or Hadron to be attempting to control 
inslaw (through SCT) in 1986. 

More importantly, none of the evidence we found supports the 
allegation that DOJ encouraged SCT to buy inslaw, or that Earl 
Brian had any connection to the SCT effort. We interviewed the SCT 
officers and employees who were primarily involved with the effort 
to purchase ins law. They told us that in late 1985 SCT officials 
approached Hamilton about a possible purchase of inslaw and that 
Hamilton was initially receptive but later rejected the offer. 
They also told us that the only contacts between SCT and DOJ 
officials occurred when SCT was doing its due diligence in 
anticipation of its purchase of ins law. They told us that they 

- 105 - 

contacted DOJ in order to determine the nature of Inslaw's disputes 
with DOJ and the possibility of Inslaw obtaining additional 
contract work from DOJ if SCT purchased Inslaw. None of the SCT 
employees identified in Hamilton's affidavit had any knowledge of 
an effort by DOJ to encourage SCT to purchase inslaw. Likewise, 
none had any knowledge of any connection between Earl Brian and 

9 . The Lois Battistoni Allegations 
In his affidavit, William Hamilton attributes the following 
information to Lois Battistoni: 

Lois Battistoni, a former DOJ Criminal 
Division employee, told INSLAW that an 
employee of the Criminal Division disclosed to 
her in 19 8 8 that the company chosen to take 
over INSLAW'S business with DOJ was connected 
to one of the top DOJ officials through a 
California relationship and that Hadron fit 
the bill because both Brian and Meese served 
together in Governor Reagan's administration 
in California. 

. . . Battistoni also learned from 

another employee of the Criminal Division in 
July 1989 that DOJ intended "to bury INSLAW," 
meaning cover up what it had done to INSLAW. 

a. Lois Battistoni 

Not surprisingly, we began our investigation of these 
allegations with an interview of Ms. Battistoni herself. Lois 
Battistoni is a former DOJ administrative employee. It became 
apparent during our interview of her that she has absolutely no 
first hand information regarding Inslaw's allegations. In fact, 
virtually all of the information that she provided came from 
newspaper and journal articles that she saved. 

- 106 - 

With respect to the statement that "an employee of the 
Criminal Division disclosed to her in 1988 that the company chosen 
to take over Inslaw's business with DOJ was connected to one of the 
top DOJ officials through a California relationship and that Hadron 
fit the bill because both Brian and Meese served together in 
Governor Reagan ' s administration," Ms. Battistoni told us that she 
was given this information by an attorney at DOJ who did not wish 
to have his identity revealed. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
" Fed*- E„ .Crinu P„ 6(e), 

Battistoni did, however, tell us that she was told in 1989 by 
Floyd Bankson, who was a system engineer in the Criminal Division, 
that DOJ intended to "bury inslaw," meaning cover up what it had 
done to inslaw. Additionally, she later told us that Garnett 
Taylor and Charles Trombetta had information about DOJ and Inslaw. 

While these were the only leads that Battistoni was able to 
provide, we must add that, for the following reasons, any 
information provided by Battistoni is extremely suspect. To begin 
with, Battistoni appeared to manipulate and misstate evidence in 

- 107 - 

order to support her generalized suspicions of wrongdoing at DOJ. 
For example, Battistoni told us that she did not believe that we 
were actively investigating the Inslaw matter. We then wrote 
Battistoni a letter in which we assured Battistoni that we were 
actively investigating the matter, and we would very much like to 
meet with anyone who she believed had information that would assist 
our investigation. We urged her to contact us to arrange such a 
meeting. This letter was sent to the real estate office where 
Battistoni worked. Shortly after this letter was sent, a reporter 
called to advise that he had been given a copy of our letter and 
that this copy of the letter had on the bottom of it "CC:AG/WH." 
The letter that we sent Battistoni was not carbon copied to anyone 
and had no "CC" reference on it. Battistoni denied altering the 
letter and claimed to us she received the letter in that condition. 
It appears to us, however, that Battistoni added this "CC" 
information in an attempt to suggest that we were sending 
information gathered in our investigation to the Attorney General 
and the White House (which we, of course, were not) . In an attempt 
to undermine the credibility of this investigation, she then gave 
this doctored letter to William Hamilton, presumably knowing that 
Hamilton would give it to the press. 

The second credibility problem was that Battistoni appeared to 
be extremely biased against DOJ. During our interview of her, she 
accused DOJ of being involved in numerous acts of wrongdoing that 
had nothing whatsoever to do with Inslaw. Despite the fact that we 
informed Battistoni that the focus of our inquiry was solely on the 

- 108 - 

Inslaw allegations, Battistoni kept returning to these other 
alleged wrongdoings by DOJ. Battistoni' s information about these 
other alleged wrongdoings by DOJ- -like her information regarding 
inslaw- -consisted purely of hearsay information and speculation. 

b . Charles Trombetta 

We interviewed Charles Trombetta, one of the individuals who 
Battistoni identified as having information about DOJ and Inslaw. 
Trombetta stated that he had no direct knowledge of the Inslaw 
matter. He further stated that Garnett Taylor might have 
information concerning the possession of inslaw documents by the 
DOJ security office, but Trombetta could not provide any further 
details . 

c. Garnett Taylor 

Lois Battistoni told us that Garnett Taylor had information 
about DOJ and Inslaw. In addition, William Hamilton told us that 
a senior U.S. Government official, whom Hamilton refused to 
identify, told Hamilton that Taylor, a former security officer at 
DOJ, had information about DOJ malfeasance in regard to INSLAW. 
Specifically, according to Hamilton's source, Taylor knew about the 
destruction of a number of INSLAW documents by the Justice 
Department's Office of Security. 

j&iaterial Omitted Pursuant to 
.Crinu 6(e), 

- 109 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., R.. Crinu P.. 6(e), 

- 110 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed.. R., Crim. P. 6(e) 

d. James walker 
Material Omitted *-■ 

Wpa T? r • "1, ^uant to we spoke with James walker, who is 

J,ea * E - Crim. p. 6(e) 

the Chief Security Specialist with the Justice Management Division. 
Walker has been employed by DOJ for eight years. As part of his 
duties he operates a Sensitive Compartment Information Facility 
("SCIF"), a specially constructed room with special locks and 
alarms within the DOJ building. DOJ attorneys cannot store 
classified national security/foreign intelligence documents in 
their offices. 

Walker supervised Garnett Taylor for approximately one year 
before Taylor was transferred to Personnel Security, where Taylor 
was assigned for about one year. As a control officer, Taylor had 
responsibility for shredding classified documents once a 
determination was made that the documents need not be retained. 
However, Taylor did not review the classified files of departing 
DOJ attorneys to determine whether the documents should be retained 
or shredded. Rather, the DOJ attorney would review the classified 
documents and determine whether the documents should be shredded or 

Material Omitted Pursuant 
Fed., B* Crim.. p.. 6{e) 


- 111 - 

walker stated that it was conceivable that Taylor had been 
dispatched to take care of a file cabinet belonging to a DOJ 
employee who had left. However, walker had no recollection of an 
incident where he reassigned Taylor to another task and handled the 
disposition of the documents in the file cabinet himself. 

walker stated that there were no Inslaw or PROMIS documents in 
the DOJ Security Department. To walker's knowledge there were 
never any inslaw documents in any of the safes he controlled or any 
of the safes he knew about. 

e. Flovd Bank son 

We interviewed Floyd Bankson about Battistoni's allegations 
that he told Battistoni that DOJ intended to "bury inslaw." 
Battistoni was a secretary at LEAA when Bankson worked there in 
1977. Bankson later went on to work in the Office of Policy and 
Management Analysis within DOJ's Criminal Division. There, Bankson 
was involved with the implementation of Project Eagle. 

Bankson absolutely denied the allegations made by Battistoni 
and Hamilton. He said that he never heard Lowell Jensen say 
anything derogatory about Inslaw, and that Jensen had never 
pressured him to select the DALITE system for DOJ's case tracking 
needs. Bankson also said that he never said that DOJ intended to 
"bury INSLAW," and that he in fact was not aware of any wrongdoing 
in connection with PROMIS that needed to be "buried." According to 
Bankson, Lois Battistoni was "constantly" calling him to ask 
whether he had read various news articles. It was Bankson' s 

- 112 - 

opinion that Battistoni liked the publicity that she had obtained 
as a result of Inslaw's allegations. 

10 . Ronald LeGrand 

In his December 1989 affidavit, William Hamilton swears to the 

In late April 1988, Ronald LeGrand, then Chief 
Investigator of the Senate Judiciary Committee, 
telephoned me to request a full briefing on the 
disputes between INSLAW and DOJ. My wife and I 
subsequently briefed LeGrand at INSLAW on the 
morning of May 11. LeGrand telephoned me two days 
later with information that he said a trusted 
source had asked him to convey. LeGrand described 
the source as a senior career official in DOJ "with 
a title" whom LeGrand had known for 15 years and 
whose veracity LeGrand could attest to without 
reservation. Shortly after DOJ's public 
announcement on May 6, 1988 that it would not seek 
the appointment of an independent counsel in the 
INSLAW matter and that it had cleared Meese of any 
wrongdoing, the source told LeGrand that "the 
INSLAW case was a lot dirtier for the Department of 
justice than Watergate was, both in its breadth and 
in its depth." The source also said that the 
"Justice Department has been compromised on the 
INSLAW case at every level." On several occasions 
since then, LeGrand has confirmed what he told me, 
and on October 11, 1988, Elliot Richardson, counsel 
to INSLAW, sent Robin Ross, an assistant to 
Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a memorandum 
summarizing the statements attributed by LeGrand to 
his source. In addition, the source made the 
following statements: 

Jensen engineered INSLAW's problems right 
from the start and relied for this purpose 
principally upon three senior DOJ officials: 

Miles Matthews, Executive Officer of the 
Criminal Division; James Knapp, a non-career 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Criminal Division; and James Johnston, 
Director of Contract Administration in the 
Justice Management Division. Miles Matthews 
stated in the presence of LeGrand 's source 
that "Lowell [Jensen] wants to get INSLAW out 
of the way and give the business to friends." 

- 113 - 

The source told LeGrand that John Keeney 
and Mark Richards, each a career Deputy 
Assistant Attorney General in the Criminal 
Division, and Philip White, the recently 
retired Director of International Affairs for 
the Criminal Division, knew "all about" the 
Jensen malfeasance in the INSLAW matter. 

Although Richards and White were "pretty 
upset" about it, the source did not believe 
that either of them would disclose what they 
knew except in response to a subpoena and 
under oath. The source added that he did not 
think either Richards or White would commit 

The source believes that documents 
relating to Project Eagle were shredded inside 
DOJ but that INSLAW should nevertheless 
subpoena DOJ paperwork prepared by a Jensen 
subordinate relating to the purchase of large 
quantities of computer hardware for which the 
senior DOJ career staff could see no 

we contacted LeGrand, who no longer works for the Senate. 
LeGrand said he would tell us about his source's information, but 
would not disclose his source’s identity. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., R., Crim., 6(e), 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed. R.. Crim. P. 6(e) 

- 115 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed.. R.. Crinu P.. 6(e). 

- 116 * 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed., R.. Crim., P.. 6(e), 

- 117 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed.. R.. Crim. P. 6(e) 

We interviewed Lowell Jensen, who is now a federal district 
judge in San Francisco. Judge Jensen denied engineering any 
contract disputes with inslaw or directing any DOJ action for the 
purpose of hurting Inslaw. Although Judge Jensen believed that he 
may once have met Earl Brian in Sacramento, California sometime 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed.. R.. .Crim.. P„ 6(e). 

- 118 - 

during the 1970 's, he denied having any involvement of any nature 
whatsoever with Brian during his service with DOJ or thereafter. 
Judge Jensen denied having any financial interest in any company 
controlled by Brian, including Biotech, Hadron, Accumenics, and 
Simeon. He also denied ever owning or ever being promised stock in 
any computer -related company. 

In a sworn statement to OPR Judge Jensen previously denied any 

plot to injure or bankrupt Inslaw and he reiterated that denial to 

us. Judge Jensen seemed to us to be sincerely interested in 

employing computer technology to modernize DOJ operations and 

management. He recalled Project Eagle, a multi -million dollar 

project to automate the litigating divisions of DOJ, but denied any 

involvement in awarding contracts for the project. {indeed, the 

RFP for the project issued in May 1986 and Judge Jensen was 

appointed to the bench the following June.) Judge Jensen impressed 

us as truthful, sincere, and straightforward in his denials of any 

wrongdoing or impropriety in connection with either PROMIS or 

Inslaw. as discussed below, none Cher individuals 

ferial ^ p . 6 ^ 

identified by LeGrand’s w stturce who we talked to gave 

us any reason to question Judge Jensen's conduct or his 

Miles Matthews, the former Deputy Associate Attorney General, 
told us that he never stated or thought that Lowell Jensen wanted 
to get Inslaw "out of the way" and give business to friends. 
Matthews also told us that he had never heard of procurement 
documents regarding Project Eagle (or anything else) being 

- 119 - 

improperly shredded. Matthews said he has never met or had any 
contact with Earl Brian, Hadron, Dominic Laiti, Simeon or 

James Knapp, a former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the 
Criminal Division, told us that he was unaware of any negative 
feelings toward Inslaw by Jensen, and denied any knowledge of (or 
participation in) a scheme to cause problems for Inslaw and to give 
Inslaw's contracts to friends of Jensen or Meese. Knapp also said 
that he did not even know Janre^o Johnston (who, according to 
LeGrand' s Cr Conspired with Knapp to implement 
Jensen's alleged scheme). 

James Johnston, the current Director of Contract 
Administration for DOJ, likewise told us that he does not believe 
he has ever met James Knapp. Johnston told us that he never 
discussed inslaw or PROMIS with Lowell Jensen, and that he never 
received any directions from any superior at DOJ regarding inslaw . 

Our interviews of Phil White, a former Acting Deputy Assistant 
Attorney General for the Criminal Division, and John Keeney and 
Mark Richard, both current Deputy Assistant Attorney Generals of 
the Criminal Division, produced similar results. Each told us that 
he had no knowledge of any wrongdoing by Lowell Jensen generally, 
or of the type of wrongdoing described in the Hamilton affidavit 

- 120 - 

C. Conclusion Regarding The Alleged Earl Brian Connection 

Our investigation has led us to conclude that inslaw's 
allegations of a conspiracy to takeover inslaw or to "get PROMIS" 
involving Earl Brian and DOJ simply do not withstand any level of 
scrutiny. Those individuals claiming to have direct knowledge of 
this conspiracy not only are unworthy of belief, but are 
contradicted by an abundance of believable and verifiable evidence 
to the contrary. 

Similarly, the claimed "circumstantial evidence" of such a 
conspiracy, as outlined by William Hamilton and Inslaw's lawyers, 
falls far short of being proof of anything. Laiti and Brian 
convincingly deny ever seeking to obtain PROMIS or Inslaw. Laiti 
has denied telling Hamilton that he had ways of making Hamilton 
sell. Neither Paul Wormeli, Marilyn Titus nor Mark Kesselman 
substantiate inslaw's claim that there was a 1983 trip to New York 
for the purpose of raising capital to buy Inslaw or PROMIS. 
Richard D'Amore denies telling Hamilton that Tessler's wife and 
former business partner, Cloherty, told him that she "knew all 
about" Brian's role in the Inslaw matter, and Cloherty denies 
making this statement or knowing anything about Brian's alleged 
role. Theresa Bousguin, a current Inslaw employee who has no 
reason to lie or to say anything that would not help Inslaw, claims 
that she told Hamilton about her conversation with Hurley, but her 
description of the conversation with Hurley is different from the 
one that appears in Hamilton's affidavit, in particular, Bousguin 
says that Hurley did not state, and she was not under the 

- 121 - 

impression that. Hadron was trying to acquire Inslaw or PROMTS. 
Additionally, Tessler denies being aware of or participating in any 
effort by Earl Brian or others to gain control of Inslaw, and he 
denies ever telling Hamilton that 53rd Street Ventures would not 
help Inslaw raise capital unless the Hamiltons turned over the 
voting rights of their stock to him. Finally, Byrnes denies having 
spearheaded, or having any knowledge of, DOJ awarding a $40 million 
computer services contract for litigation support to a Hadron 
subsidiary. It is possible that all of these people were lying, 
but we do not believe that was the case. The substance and the 
presentation of their statements persuaded us that these witnesses 
were telling the truth. 

The information from Lois Battistoni a an«fl 1 tfwl&tttle§ds , ' and the 

Material . 6 (e). 

information from LeGrand's R« ^rou^ce find absolutely no 
corroboration from the witnesses they identified. Indeed, those 
witnesses fail to provide any support for a conspiracy of any kind, 
and fail to tie any DOJ official to any misconduct with respect to 
inslaw or the PROMIS software. 

in short, there is no credible evidence that Hadron ever tried 
to acquire Inslaw or PROMIS, except for Hamilton’s claim about his 
conversation with Dominic Laiti and his claims that Ben Cnaan told 
him about a meeting with a businessman with "ties at the highest 
level of the Reagan Administration" who was eager to obtain the 
PROMIS software for use in federal government contract work. In 
light of the fact that virtually none of Hamilton's other 
statements in the affidavit are supported by the witnesses we have 

- 122 - 

spoken to, we are not inclined to rely on Hamilton's 
representations as to his conversations with Laiti and Ben Cnaan as 
the basis for concluding that Hadron sought to acquire inslaw. 

None of the other evidence we found supports Inslaw's 
allegation regarding the Brian-DOJ conspiracy. Like the Senate 
Subcommittee staff, we find no credible evidence of any connection 
between DOJ and Earl Brian or Hadron with regard to Inslaw. 

- 123 - 



inslaw's original allegations against DOJ were that certain 
DOJ employees, because of their intense bias against inslaw, 
schemed to "get the goods" from Inslaw; that is, to fraudulently 
trick Inslaw into providing DOJ with inslaw's proprietary software. 
This is the theory that Bankruptcy Judge Bason adopted in entering 
his findings of fact and conclusions of law. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason found that "DOJ converted inslaw' s 
enhanced PROMIS by trickery, fraud, and deceit." According to 
Judge Bason's view, DOJ used the threat of terminating advance 
payments as a "pretense" in order to gain the "leverage" necessary 
to obtain an enhanced version of PROMIS. He found further that 
when DOJ entered into Modification 12 it "never intended to meet 
its commitment" under that agreement, and that once DOJ received 
enhanced PROMIS pursuant to Modification 12 it "thereafter refused 
to bargain in good faith with inslaw and instead engaged in an 
outrageous, deceitful, fraudulent game of 'cat and mouse', 
demonstrating contempt for both the law and any principle of fair 
dealing. " 

The reason for this wrongful conduct, as alleged by Inslaw and 
found by Bankruptcy Judge Bason, was Brewer. Judge Bason found 
that Brewer was "consumed by hatred for and an intense desire for 
revenge against INSLAW." Judge Bason went so far as to find that 
the reason Brewer applied for the PROMIS project manager position 
was to "use that position to vent his spleen against INSLAW." The 
advance payments dispute and the request for the enhanced software 

- 124 - 

were said to be part of "Brewer's strategy for the ruination of 
INSLAW." Judge Bason suggested that Brewer's hatred of Inslaw 
poisoned other lower level DOJ employees, and that upper level DOJ 
officials consciously ignored Inslaw's complaints about Brewer 
because Deputy Attorney General D. Lowell Jensen had a "previously 
developed negative attitude about PROMIS and INSLAW." 

During our investigation of these allegations we reviewed 
deposition and trial testimony, interviewed many of the individuals 
involved, reviewed documents produced at trial, and located 
additional documentary evidence regarding these matters. The 
evidence we have compiled to date does not support a finding that 
DOJ employees intentionally deceived or defrauded Inslaw, or that 
there was a scheme to trick inslaw into turning over its 
proprietary software. To the contrary, we are persuaded that all 
of the actions taken by DOJ employees were done with a good faith 
belief that they were in the best legitimate interests of the 
government. We conclude from our review of the evidence that DOj's 
actions in connection with the advance payment dispute and its 
request for a copy of the software were reasonable, and not made 
for illegitimate or unlawful purposes. Likewise, we do not believe 
that the evidence supports the conclusion that DOJ entered into 
Modification 12 without any intention of complying with its terms, 
and for the purpose of getting Inslaw to "give up the goods." 

We do, however, find one area where the judgment of DOJ 
personnel might be subject to criticism. After the execution of 
Modification 12, and after Inslaw had submitted its proposed 

- 125 - 

methodology for identifying privately funded enhancements, DOJ 
employees could have made a greater effort to resolve the 
proprietary enhancements dispute. The position that DOJ took- -that 
its only obligation was to either accept or reject Inslaw's 
submissions - -can be criticized as inconsistent with the higher 
standard of reasonableness and fair dealing to which DOJ should 
hold itself . 61 

61 We emphasize that we have not found that Inslaw has 
demonstrated any proprietary rights in the software. The 
implication in the House Committee Report that DOJ has admitted 
Inslaw's superior proprietary rights in the software appears to us 
to be entirely unwarranted. The House Report relies upon a 
statement of Deputy Attorney General Arnold Burns to OPR, as 
essentially an admission that DOJ would lose any litigation to 
determine the parties rights in the software. The House Report 
cites the statement as "one of the most damaging statements" 
discovered by the Committee. Burns' remarks, the Report claims, 
establish that Burns was told by "Justice Department attorneys that 
the Department would probably lose the case" on the proprietary 
rights issue. The Committee's recounting of the statement 
completely distorts and misconstrues the context and import of 
Burns' statement. 

Read fairly and in the context of the entire statement, it is 
unambiguously clear that Burns was not saying that DOJ did not have 
a valid defense to Inslaw's proprietary rights claims. All that 
Burns referred to was the uncontested fact that DOJ could not 
successfully counterclaim against Inslaw for Inslaw's use and sale 
of the PROMIS software. A counterclaim by DOJ would be 
unsuccessful even though that software had originally been 
developed at the public's expense, because DOJ had already 
acknowledged that the original PROMIS was in the public domain. To 
say, as Burns did, that DOJ had no claim against Inslaw for 
Inslaw's use of the PROMIS software does not constitute an 
admission that DOJ would lose Inslaw's case against DOJ. Bums' 
statement did no more than admit the uncontested fact that the 
original PROMIS software was in the public domain and that DOJ 
would certainly lose any suit in which it took a contrary position. 

- 126 - 

A. The Advance Payments Dispute 

From what we can discern. Inslaw was the only DOJ contractor 
with an advance payments provision in its contract during 1982. in 
order to obtain such a provision inslaw had to submit to DOJ an 
official request that demonstrated that inslaw qualified for 
advance payments under the applicable regulations. Inslaw 
submitted that request on February 19, 1982, in the form of a 
letter signed by James Kelley, Inslaw's General Counsel. Because 
the relevant regulations required that a contractor requesting 
advance payments show that no means of adequate financing other 
than by advance payments were available to the contractor, Kelley's 
February 19 request letter claimed that commercial "borrowing is 
not reasonably available as a solution to Inslaw's cash flow 
problem." in reliance on that representation, videnieks obtained 
specific approval for the advance payments clause of the contract 
from the Assistant Attorney General for Administration. 

On November 1, 1982, Inslaw notified Videnieks that it had 
violated the advance payments clause by assigning its receivables 
under the contract as collateral for a line of credit. Videnieks' 
immediate response to this notice was far from rash. On November 
10, 1982, he sent Inslaw a letter instructing Inslaw immediately to 
terminate the event of default (the assignment of its receivables) , 
and requesting Inslaw to provide all documentation concerning the 
assignment and the line of credit. 

When he received the requested information from Inslaw, 
videnieks learned that Inslaw had arranged the line of credit 

- 127 - 

secured by the receivables during late March and early April 1982. 
Both videnieks and Brewer told us that they were extremely angry to 
learn that Inslaw had obtained commercial financing less than two 
months after it had declared that financing was not "reasonably 
available." Both felt that they had been lied to by Inslaw. 

Videnieks told us that it was this misrepresentation by Inslaw 
that was the primary reason for his giving notice of termination of 
advance payments. Having viewed videnieks demeanor, and having 
considered all the surrounding circumstances, we believe videnieks 
on this point. Not only did Videnieks feel he had been lied to, 
but he also had evidence before him that Inslaw did not in fact 
qualify for the advance payment program. virtually everyone we 
spoke to, including witnesses identified by inslaw, agreed that 
videnieks was a very "by the book" contracting officer, indeed, he 
appeared to us to be a man who is most comfortable when discussing 
precise contractual issues. His denial that he had any intention 
of trying to force Inslaw into "giving up the goods" when he 
decided to terminate the advance payments is supported by the 
weight of the evidence. 

Inslaw, and Bankruptcy Judge Bason, go to great lengths to 
emphasize that Inslaw's "technical violation" of assigning its 
receivables did not put the government at financial risk. They 
appear to be correct on that point. But that does not lead to the 
conclusion that DOj’s decision to terminate the advance payments 
was wrongful or a pretext, videnieks explained the primary reasons 
for the threatened termination in terms of the nature of Inslaw's 

- 128 - 

default, not in terms of risk to the government. The fact that the 
government was relatively secure did not mean that Inslaw still 
qualified for advance payments, or that DOJ had not been misled. 
If Inslaw wanted seriously to challenge Videnieks' explanation of 
his decision, it would be much more effective to present evidence 
that DOJ knew that Inslaw was obtaining commercial financing at the 
same time it was representing in its formal request that it could 
not. to our knowledge, no such evidence exists. 

B. DOJ 1 s Demand For a Copy Of PROMIS 

In November 1982 Brewer requested Inslaw to produce "all 
computer programs and supporting documentation developed for or 
relating to this contract." After Inslaw informed DOJ that the 
contract required the contracting officer to make such a request, 
Videnieks sent Inslaw a letter on December 6, 1982, requesting in 
more specific detail essentially the same materials. 

In their prior testimony, and in their statements to us, 
Brewer, Videnieks, and Rugh, have maintained that this request was 
made out of a concern about Inslaw's financial condition. This 
concern arose from the fact that DOJ did not yet have any copies of 
the version of PROMIS that was called for in the contract: the 
Pilot Project version plus the five BJS enhancements. Because as 
of December 1982 DOJ had not yet selected or purchased its mini- 
computers, Inslaw had not completed any permanent installations 
under the contract. At that point Inslaw was making PROMIS 
available to United States Attorneys' offices by way of 
telecommunications links to Inslaw's time sharing computer in 

-129 - 

Virginia. DOJ's concern was that if Inslaw failed prior to the 
first installation DOJ would not have available to it a functioning 
copy of the contract version of PROMIS. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason found that DOJ's claimed concern about 
Inslaw's finances were just a pretense and a ruse to "get the 
goods" from Ins law. we do not agree, and cannot even find support 
for such a theory in the evidence Judge Bason cites. 

All of the actions taken by DOJ employees around the time DOJ 
made its request for the software are consistent with its 
explanation of its conduct. The internal memoranda and the 
handwritten notes created around that time by DOJ employees reflect 
an ongoing institutional concern about inslaw' s financial health, 
and about the "programmatic risk" created by not having a copy of 
PROMIS. The testimony of all of the DOJ witnesses points to 
continuous discussions within DOJ about Inslaw's financial health 
and about how DOJ would and could respond in the event of a 
failure. To believe that DOJ's concerns about Inslaw's financial 
health were actually a pretext, would require a finding that 
certain DOJ employees were so prescient that they created numerous 
internal documents, and indeed even misled their superiors, just so 
that they could defend themselves against a claim of theft years 
later . 

At trial, Bankruptcy Judge Bason refused to believe any of the 
DOJ witnesses who expressed concerns about Inslaw's financial 
viability. He found that during the winter of 1982-83 Inslaw was 
not in a vulnerable financial position, and therefore concluded 

- 130 - 

that DO J 1 s claimed concern about ins law's financial condition was 
a "known false pretext," put forward as part of a scheme to obtain 
a version of PROMIS to which the government was not entitled. 62 

Videnieks testified at trial that he had been told by Robert 
Whitely, the government's auditor on the inslaw contract, that 
inslaw was near insolvency. Whitely likewise testified that after 
reviewing inslaw's financial statements and meeting with Inslaw's 
accountants, he expressed his view that Inslaw either was or was 
nearly insolvent. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason, however, said he believed Whitely' s 
testimony was "manufactured solely for use at trial." (Oddly, 
elsewhere in his findings and conclusions, Bankruptcy Judge Bason 
found that Whitley was "generally truthful.") Judge Bason stated 
this conclusion after finding that Whitely never prepared any 
report, that Whitely never referred to the potential of Inslaw's 
insolvency in his deposition, and that Videnieks did not mention 
Whitely in his deposition. All of these factual assertions appear 

“Bankruptcy Judge Bason neither acknowledged nor addressed the 
inherent tension between his finding: (a) that in December 1982, 
when DOJ requested a copy of the contract version of PROMIS, 
Inslaw's financial position was so strong that any claimed concern 
by DOJ employees must have been pretextual, and (b) that in January 
1983 (one month later) , when DOJ threatened to terminate the 
advance payments, DOJ employees were "well aware of ins law's 
financial position and were equally well aware of the potential for 
harm to Inslaw from delayed payments" . ironically, one item of 
evidence Judge Bason cited as evidence of Inslaw's strength was its 
$1.2 million line of credit at Bank of Bethesda. Obviously, Judge 
Bason felt that the willingness of a bank to lend to Inslaw was a 
sign of financial health. He never addressed, however, what it 
said about Inslaw's financial health that in order to get a loan 
Inslaw was required to pledge assets it had agreed not to assign, 
and that Inslaw had apparently borrowed more than it had planned to 
borrow at the tinle of the contract award. 

- 131 - 

to be just plain wrong. Even in the pages of trial testimony that 
Judge Bason cites as support for the proposition that Whitely never 
documented his concerns, Whitely testified that he did in fact 
prepare work papers that he submitted to Justice Management 
Division officials. Likewise, Whitely stated quite clearly in his 
deposition, "I thought Inslaw, unless they became a more profitable 
corporation, was facing insolvency, period." Finally, Videnieks 
stated in both his deposition and his trial testimony that he was 
informed by the "audit staff" of the potential for an Inslaw 
failure. Whitely, of course, was part of the audit staff. 

Not only did the evidence support DOJ's claim that its 
employees were subjectively concerned about Inslaw's financial 
health, but also independent evidence suggests that those concerns 
were not unreasonable. One of Inslaw's investors, a former member 
of its Board of Directors, told us that by the Spring of 1983, 
shortly after he made his initial investment in inslaw, he had 
decided not to invest further in the company because he felt it did 
not have a strong future. Another investor expressed a similar 
view of the company based on his analysis of Inslaw's condition in 
1984 . 

In summary, we find that DOJ requested a copy of PROMIS not as 
a pretext, but out of a good faith belief that the possibility of 
an Inslaw failure left the government in an extremely vulnerable 

- 132 - 

C. DQJ * s Original Demand was Not For Enhanced PROMIS 

There is a fundamental, and perhaps fatal, flaw to the theory 
of conversion advanced by Inslaw and Bankruptcy Judge Bason. 
According to that theory, DOJ asked for a copy of PROMIS and then 
used "the pretense of threatened termination of advance payments" 
as part of a plan whereby DOJ "knowingly set out to obtain a 
version of PROMIS to which it was not entitled under the contract 
and which DOJ understood contained proprietary enhancements 
belonging to Inslaw." As is apparent from Judge Bason’s 
formulation of the plan, this theory requires proof that DOJ set 
out to obtain something to which it was not entitled. That proof 
is missing. 

The contract required Inslaw to provide only public domain 

software; i . e. , the Pilot Project version plus the five BJS 

enhancements. DOJ's initial request was for the software being 

provided under the contract. If Inslaw had in fact maintained a 

contract version of PROMIS there would have been no proprietary 

rights dispute. Inslaw's production of such a version would have 

satisfied any obligation it had under the contract, and DOJ would 

have been protected from an Inslaw failure. 


Inslaw did not maintain such a version, however, and therefore 
it faced the possibility of producing a version of PROMIS that it 
considered proprietary. It was as a result of this situation that 
inslaw notified DOJ in February 1983 that the time -sharing version 
of PROMIS contained proprietary enhancements. But the fact remains 
that there is no evidence that anyone at DOJ knew before February 

- 133 - 

1983 that inslaw was unable to produce a contract version of 
PROMIS . 63 

The absence of such evidence is critical. Throughout his 
opinion Bankruptcy Judge Bason refers to DOJ's attempts to "obtain 
a version of PROMIS to which it was not entitled." But Brewer, 
Videnieks and the others at DOJ could not have been trying to get 
a version of PROMIS to which they were not entitled unless they 
knew that Inslaw was unable to produce the version of PROMIS to 
which they were entitled. 61 We have scoured the record trying to 
find evidence that Inslaw told DOJ that it did not maintain a copy 
of the contract version of PROMIS, but we find nothing. In fact, 
we cannot even find evidence that anyone at DOJ knew that Inslaw 
was providing something other than the contract version of PROMIS 
through time -sharing. 66 

63 lns law's statement in its technical proposal that it would 
"make available" to DOJ privately financed enhancements during the 
life of the contract does not constitute such evidence. To begin 
with, it is a far different thing to say "enhancements will be made 
available" than to say "enhancements were unilaterally inserted in 
your program and the old version was discarded." Moreover, any 
claim by Inslaw that its technical proposal allowed it to put 
proprietary enhancements in the contract version of PROMIS is 
completely inconsistent with Inslaw's conduct. If Inslaw had 
believed that the contract permitted it to provide DOJ with 
software in which the government had only limited rights, the whole 
Modification 12 dispute would not have arisen the way it did. The 
problems arose when, faced with a request for a copy of software 
being used to perform the contract, Inslaw declined to produce the 
software requested because it recognized that the government had 
unlimited rights in the contract version of PROMIS. 

61 Inslaw does not dispute that DOJ was entitled under the 
contract to have Inslaw produce some version of PROMIS. 

65 Videnieks specifically asked Inslaw in his March 8, 1983, 
letter to identify any government personnel to whom notice was 

(continued. . . ) 

- 134 - 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason found that DOJ's request for the 
software, by its very nature, " required Inslaw to produce software 
codes for the enhancements otherwise not deliverable under the 
contract." (emphasis added). This is not the case. DOJ's initial 
request required Inslaw to produce the version of PROMIS it was 
using to perform the contract. It was the failure of Inslaw to 
maintain an "unenhanced" version of the software that "required" it 
to produce an enhanced version in response to the government's 
request. The evidence is quite clear that the decision to maintain 
only one version of PROMIS was made by Inslaw alone, without 
consultation with or request from DOJ. The testimony of Inslaw's 
witnesses at trial, as well as internal Inslaw documents from that 
period, makes clear that the allegedly proprietary enhancements 
were "incorporated into the Executive Office of the U.S. Attorney's 
VAX version of PROMIS . . . [in order] to simplify maintenance of 
VAX/ PROMIS i.e., to maintain a single version of most of the 
computer programs for EOUSA and for Inslaw's other VAX clients.'' 
Indeed, one of inslaw' s officers testified at trial that it was 
"inevitable” that inslaw would produce the claimed proprietary 
enhancements to DOJ because inslaw didn't have another version of 
PROMIS that was frozen and bug free. 

It is this absence of evidence that DOJ knew, when it 
requested a copy of the PROMIS codes, that it would obtain 

65 ( . . . continued) 

given prior to February 4, 1983, that Inslaw was using a 

proprietary version of PROMIS to perform the contract. Inslaw 
never identified anyone in response to this request. 

- 135 - 

something other than the contract version, that is one of the great 
weaknesses in Bankruptcy Judge Bason's conversion theory. This, 
along with the other evidence described above, leads us to conclude 
that DO J ' s demand for a copy of the PROMIS codes was made in good 
faith and for legitimate reasons. 

d. DOJ's Conduct After Modification 12 

By the time the parties executed Modification 12 the situation 
was different, however. At that point Inslaw had informed DOJ : (1) 
that the VAX version of PROMIS being provided under the time 
sharing arrangement contained enhancements that Inslaw considered 
proprietary, and (2) that Inslaw could and would remove these 
enhancements if DOJ wanted, but that backing out the enhancements 
would be a difficult and costly process. It was in response to 
these representations by Inslaw that DOJ presented in its March 18 
letter the proposed solution that resulted in Modification 12. 66 
Under DOJ's proposal Inslaw first was "to identify the 'proprietary 
enhancements' that it [could] demonstrate were developed at private 
expense and ... outside the scope of Inslaw’s performance of any 
government contract.” DOJ would then either direct Inslaw to 
remove the enhancement or negotiate with inslaw regarding inclusion 
of the enhancement. Pending resolution of the inclusion/removal 
issues, DOJ could not disseminate the software beyond the offices 
covered by the contract. 

“Although Modification 12 itself does not mention the dispute 
resolution procedure outlined in the March 18 letter, we think it 
clear, and most at DOJ do not dispute, that DOJ was obligated to 
live up to its proposal of March 18. 

- 136 - 

In agreeing to this dispute resolution process DOJ was 
bargaining away some of its rights. Prior to Modification 12, DOJ 
could claim unlimited rights in any software provided to it by 
Inslaw. if Inslaw had voluntarily provided more software than 
required, it appears to us that the data rights clause, in 
conjunction with the voluntary efforts provisions of the contract, 
would have given DOJ unlimited rights in the software produced. 
Under Modification 12, however, the government in effect agreed to 
"give back" any enhancements it did not want by instructing Inslaw 
to delete those enhancements from doj's copy of the software. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason found that DOJ "never intended to meet 
its commitment" under Modification 12. We do not believe the 
evidence supports that finding. The weight of the evidence 
demonstrates that the DOJ employees involved reviewed Inslaw's 
submissions in good faith, and responded in ways that they 
subjectively believed were within the government's legitimate 
rights under the contract. We find no evidence of bad faith or 
intentional wrongdoing. 

On May 4, 1983, Inslaw proposed to DOJ a specific methodology 
for identifying proprietary enhancements. Under this proposed 
methodology, for each claimed enhancement Inslaw would identify the 
date of the change and the programmer (s) responsible for that 
change. inslaw would then review the time sheets of the 
programmer (s) for the relevant period to determine if the 
programmer (s) had billed sufficient time to non -government projects 
so that the change could fairly be described as privately funded. 

- 137 - 

Inslaw told DOJ that in pursuing this methodology, it would be 
required to retrieve and review thousands of pages of historical 
documents, inslaw asked DOJ to confirm at the outset that this was 
an acceptable method. In its letter, inslaw also asked DOJ to 
suggest revisions to the methodology if this approach was 

Videnieks relied primarily on Jack Rugh in responding to this 
proposal. Rugh considered the proposed methodology inadequate. 
Rugh told us that his strongest objection was to the part of the 
proposal that would count privately funded hours first. 67 He felt 
the issue was not whether a programmer billed "sufficient” time to 
have billed a change to a private client, but whether the 
programmer billed the "actual" hours in which the change was made 
to a private client. Rugh also told us that he believed from 
inslaw’s submissions that Inslaw did not keep sufficient records to 
prove that the changes were privately funded. 

Rugh considered whether to propose to Inslaw an acceptable 
methodology. In the end, Videnieks and Rugh chose neither to 
accept Inslaw’s methodology nor to propose revisions or an 
acceptable methodology. Neither Videnieks nor Rugh informed Inslaw 
why its methodology was unacceptable, or that Rugh had concluded 
that sufficient records did not exist to support any methodology. 

67 in other words, if a programmer billed 20 private hours and 
20 government hours in a week in which it took him 19 hours to make 
a particular change, Rugh understood that the proposal would count 
that change as pr-ivately funded. 

- 138 - 

This is not a response we would have recommended. It is 
difficult for us to see a good reason not to tell Inslaw what 
criticism DOJ had of inslaw' s methodology. Perhaps Inslaw could 
have addressed those concerns. Perhaps not. But the point is that 
it was in neither party's interest to have Inslaw guessing about 
what was the problem with the methodology. We think that instead 
of simply signalling "thumbs down" without further explanation, it 
would have been preferable for DOJ to have articulated its reasons 
for rejecting Inslaw's proposal. 

But the question for our investigation was not whether DOJ 
employees behaved as we would have, but rather whether there is 
sufficient evidence to conclude that these employees responded in 
bad faith with the intent wrongfully to obtain Inslaw's property or 
injure Inslaw. We found no such evidence. Videnieks and Rugh felt 
that their position was proper because, as they read Modification 
12, they only had an obligation to negotiate about whether to 
include enhancements once they were demonstrated, not to negotiate 
about whether the enhancements existed, in addition, Rugh did not 
propose an alternative methodology because he believed that Inslaw 
had insufficient records to support any reasonable methodology. He 
told us that he in fact considered proposing an alternative 
methodology as a theoretical matter, but that after he became aware 
of the type of records inslaw kept he was unable to devise any 
acceptable methodology. We are persuaded from our meetings with 
Rugh and videnieks and from our review of the evidence that these 
reasons, and not a desire to cheat Inslaw, explain DOJ's conduct. 

- 139 - 

While we may have responded differently, we do not divine from 
the conduct of DOJ's employees here some conspiracy or intent on 
anyone's part to cheat Inslaw. In our judgment, this conduct 
stemmed from a desire to protect the legitimate interests of the 
government. We believe, however, that the judgment exercised by 
DOJ in this instance failed to respond to Inslaw's legitimate 
request and failed to aid resolution of the issues about the 
alleged enhancements. We attribute this conduct mostly to the 
atmosphere of distrust that surrounded the administration of this 
contract. Within months after the start of the contract. Brewer 
and other DOJ employees had come to question Inslaw's credibility 
on key issues (and they can point to specific instances in which 
Inslaw made what they felt were inaccurate statements) . Likewise, 
within a couple of months after the start of the contract, Hamilton 
and other Inslaw employees came to question Brewer's objectivity 
(and they, too, can point to episodes from which they concluded 
that Brewer was overtly hostile) . In short, there may have been 
poor judgment here, but not intentional wrongdoing. 

- 140 - 


in addition to claiming that Earl Brian and Hadron illegally 
obtained and distributed PROMIS, Inslaw has alleged that DOJ itself 
wrongfully distributed PROMIS. These allegations focus on three 
separate areas: (1) the claimed use of PROMIS by the FBI in 

creating its FOIMS computer program, (2) the installation of PROMIS 
in U.S. Attorneys' offices beyond the 20 sites at which Inslaw 
installed PROMIS, and (3) the claimed distribution of enhanced 
PROMIS to various foreign governments. We will address these in 

A. A Comparison of FOIMS and PROMIS 

1 . The Allegation that FOIMS is Pirated From PROMIS 

inslaw first raised the prospect that the FBI's Field Office 

information Management System ("FOIMS") was a pirated form of 

Inslaw's PROMIS software in papers filed with the Bankruptcy Court 

in early 1991 in support of its motion to reopen discovery. To 

support this charge. Inslaw relied upon a January 1991 letter from 

Terry D. Miller, President of Government Sales Consultants, Inc., 

to FBI Director william Sessions. Miller's letter charged: 

I Have [ sic ] reason to believe that the 
software that your agency uses throughout the 
U.S. -FOIMS- is stolen. 

Miller's letter stated no basis for his belief that FOIMS was 
stolen, but urged the Director to investigate. 

The FBI did just that. In response to Miller's letter, Kier 
T. Boyd, the Deputy Assistant Director of the FBI's Technical 
Services Division, wrote Miller asking for the basis of his charge. 

- 141 - 

including the individual or company from whom the software was 
stolen, a description of the software, who stole the software and 
when. Miller's reply to the FBI's letter was to charge that the 
FBI's response was "defensive." Miller did not provide any of the 
information the FBI requested. 

Miller's letter and the FBI's response promptly found their 

way to inslaw and were attached to Inslaw's brief in the Bankruptcy 

Court. Inslaw' s submission essentially charged that, by not 

rejecting Miller's charge out of hand, the FBI admitted that FOIMS 

was stolen and that FOIMS was PROMIS. In a subsequent affidavit 

filed with the Bankruptcy Court, the FBI's Boyd provided the denial 

that Inslaw claimed was missing. In his affidavit Boyd stated: 

. . . since learning of Inslaw's assertion 

respecting PROMIS, I have reviewed the matter 
with the FBI staff responsible for the 
development of FOIMS from September 1977 to 
the present. On the basis of that review, I 
can state that a) the FBI does not use, nor 
has it ever used, the enhanced version (or any 
other version) of PROMIS and that b) FOIMS was 
developed entirely by the FBI in-house; it is 
not based on and does not contain the enhanced 
version (or any other version) of PROMIS -- or 
any portion thereof. 

In subsequent correspondence with the FBI, Miller stated that 
he did not know whether FOIMS contained stolen software and 
acknowledged that he based his allegations on claims made by 
others. Inslaw, however, disagreed. In a submission to us, Inslaw 
claimed that an unnamed "senior career Justice Department official" 
told Inslaw that John Otto, former Acting Director of the FBI, had 
admitted that FOIMS was PROMIS. 

- 142 - 

The House Committee Report repeated some of the allegations 
that had been made by Inslaw about FOIMS, but did not purport to 
answer Inslaw's questions. The Report noted, however, some of the 
preliminary steps we had taken during our investigation to resolve 
the issue. 

2 . Our Investigation 

Early in our investigation of inslaw's allegations, we talked 
to Otto about the admission Inslaw claimed he made. Otto denied 
making the statement that FOIMS is PROMIS. Otto told us that he is 
essentially "computer illiterate" and he had insufficient technical 
knowledge even to discuss such a subject . 68 

Nevertheless, because of the importance inslaw attached to 
this issue, we hired an expert consultant to settle the issue 
whether FOIMS was derived from PROMIS. Director Sessions offered 
us the FBI's complete cooperation and agreed with our request to 


conduct an examination of the FOIMS software. The Director 
requested several reasonable security related conditions, including 
requiring that our expert have appropriate security clearance, we 
agreed with the conditions proposed by the Director. 

We asked inslaw to provide us suggestions on the selection of 
an expert and specifically indicated our desire to retain a person 
with no previous contact with the PROMIS controversy. Mr. Hamilton 
directed us to Marian Holton, an Inslaw employee. Holton, after 

6B lnslaw also suggested to us that the Drug Enforcement Agency 
(DEA) also used PROMIS. We spoke with Philip Cammera, from DEA 
Information Systems, who told us that DEA used neither promis nor 
FOIMS. Instead, DEA used a third case tracking management system 
that DEA had developed internally. 

- 143 - 

first advising us that she would need to study our request, finally 
advised us that the only expert that she could recommend was the 
expert that Xnslaw had used in the adversary proceeding against the 
DOJ. we again explained that we wished to retain an independent 
expert who had not previously formed opinions about the PROMIS 
dispute. Holton later indicated that she could suggest no one 
other than Xnslaw 1 s prior litigation consultant. In August 1992, 
Inslaw did provide us with a proposed plan for the analysis of 

Despite the absence of any helpful suggestions about an expert 
from Inslaw, we retained Professor Dorothy Denning, Chair of the 
Computer Science Department at Georgetown University. Professor 
Denning had served as a expert for the defendant in a criminal 
matter tried before me in the Northern District of Illinois. The 
successful defense in that case resulted in the mid- trial dismissal 
of the charges. The FBI voiced no objection to our choice and 
processed her security clearance. 

We believe Professor Denning's impartiality cannot reasonably 
be questioned. Professor Denning's credentials are impeccable. 
We provided a copy of her curriculum vitae to Inslaw for comment 
and received no objections. We also provided the professor with a 
copy of Inslaw's FOIMS analysis plan to facilitate her comparison 

We attempted to reach William Hamilton on three separate 
occasions to invite him or another Inslaw representative to the on- 
site review of FOIMS at the FBI headquarters. Our calls were not 

- 144 - 

returned. We specifically informed Hamilton’s office that we would 
be at FBI headquarters on January 8, 199 3, to review the FOIMS 
software. We left a message asking Hamilton to telephone us so 
that we would know the identity of the Inslaw representative who 
would accompany us during the review. Again, our calls were not 
returned. After the close of business on January 7, 1993, the day 
before our review, however, Hamilton sent a facsimile transmission 
of a letter to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Chicago. 

in his lengthy letter, Hamilton reiterated his belief that 
FOIMS had been derived from PROMIS. He informed us, however, that 
Inslaw did not wish to participate in our comparison of FOIMS and 
PROMIS, and speculated that the FOIMS software might have been 
switched by the FBI during the course of our investigation. 
Hamilton's letter also repeated his request for the appointment of 
independent counsel and suggested that the new administration 
appoint one. Hamilton also suggested that a "last minute" 
examination, i . e . , one prior to the appointment of a new Attorney 
General, would inhibit his ability to discover the truth. We 
proceeded with our investigation without participation by Inslaw. 

Before Professor Denning's review, we spoke with Gordon 
Zacrep. zacrep has been Section Chief of the FBI's System 
Development Section since 1985. He denied that FOIMS had any 
relation to PROMIS. Zacrep told us that the FBI had independently 
developed FOIMS and that the FBI had never received a copy of the 
PROMIS software. Zacrep offered whatever assistance he and the FBI 
could provide to facilitate our review of the software. He offered 

- 145 - 

to make available all programmers and support staff we needed to 
assist us and any information that we wished to review. 

We asked Professor Denning to do whatever she believed was 
necessary to evaluate the claim that FOIMS was derived from PROMIS. 
Professor Denning viewed both the operation of FOIMS at the FBI 
Headquarters and the operation of PROMIS at DOJ. After Professor 
Denning's review of the two programs, she told us that there could 
be no relation between the two programs. She was extremely 
confident of her conclusion. She said that the PROMIS software, 
which is written in COBOL, is so different from FOIMS that it could 
not have served as the platform for the development of FOIMS, which 
was written in the NATURAL /AD ABASE programming/database management 
environment. Professor Denning concluded that the two programs 
were so obviously different that any further examination of the 
source code would be a waste of her time and the government's 
money . 

We have complete confidence in the opinions and conclusions of 
Professor Denning, we also credit the representations of Zacrep 
concerning the origins of the FOIMS software. We conclude that the 
FBI's FOIMS software is not PROMIS or any derivative of PROMIS. It 
is unfortunate Inslaw declined to participate in the review of the 
operation of the two software systems, we are confident that after 
seeing the operation of the software, any reasonable person would 
readily agree that FOIMS and PROMIS are completely different. 

- 146 - 

B . DOJ's Self - installation of PROMIS 

After the expiration of the 19 82 contract DOJ began self- 
ins tailing PROMIS in additional U.S. Attorneys' offices. The 
version of PROMIS that DOJ used to make these installations was the 
Prime version of PROMIS that Inslaw had installed at the 20 large 
offices listed in the contract. Inslaw now claims, and Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason found, that these additional installations violated 
Modification 12, which limited dissemination of PROMIS "to the 94 
United States Attorneys' Offices covered by the contract." Inslaw 
says that Modification 12' s reference to 94 offices should be 
understood to mean that DOJ could install PROMIS only at the 20 
offices designated to receive PROMIS under the contract, and that 
as to the other 74 offices DOJ could install only word processing 
software. DOJ, on the other hand, takes the position that 
Modification 12 had nothing to do with the word processing 
software, and that it only agreed to limit dissemination of PROMIS 
beyond the various U.S. Attorneys' offices. After reviewing the 
entire record, we agree with DOJ, and find that it was neither 
improper nor unreasonable for DOJ to self -install PROMIS after the 
expiration of the contract. 

To begin with, all of the various correspondence and documents 
surrounding the execution of Modification 12 refer exclusively to 
PROMIS computer software. DOJ's original request was for PROMIS, 
and Modification 12 itself recited that its purpose was "to effect 
delivery to the Government of VAX -Specific PROMIS computer programs 
and documentation requested by the Government on December 6, 

- 147 - 


1982. ..." Similarly, the dissemination restriction contained 
within Modification 12 specifically said that the "Government shall 
limit and restrict the dissemination of the said PROMIS computer 
software. . . . " These specific references to PROMIS cannot 
reasonably be viewed as intending to cover word processing based 
programs as well. Throughout the contract, the statement of work, 
and Inslaw's technical proposal, a distinction was always made 
between PROMIS and the word processing based software that would 
perform PROMIS -like case management functions. When the parties 
wanted to refer to word processing software in addition to PROMIS 
they knew how to do it. There is no reference to the word 
processing software in Modification 12 or in the government's 
request for a copy of the contract version of PROMIS. 69 Indeed, 
at least one Inslaw employee admitted at trial that nothing in 
Modification 12 requested word processing based software. 

Consistent with such a request, Inslaw delivered to DOJ only 
PROMIS computer software on April 20, 1983, when it complied with 
its obligations under Modification 12. Although inslaw did deliver 
word processing software to DOJ from time to time, this was done 
both before and after Modification 12, and never with reference to 
Modification 12. 

DOJ's interpretation is also far more consistent with the 
positions taken by the parties prior to the execution of 

69 As part of its Modification 12 request the government asked 
for computer programs developed for extracting data from word 
processing based systems. Such programs are separate from the word 
processing based systems themselves, and are necessary only to 
transfer data to the computer based system. 

- 148 - 

Modification 12. In negotiating Modification 12, Inslaw wanted to 
limit dissemination in order to protect property in which it 
claimed a proprietary interest. Yet Inslaw has never claimed any 
proprietary interest in the word processing software. Any 
reference to word processing software in connection with 
Modification 12 would have been unnecessary and superfluous. 
Likewise, Inslaw's position from the start, even as explained to 
its own lawyers, was that it would give enhanced PROMIS to DOJ at 
no extra cost if DOJ would agree "not to disseminate the U . S . 
Attorneys' Office version [of PROMIS] beyond the U.S. Attorneys' 
Offices, currently numbering 94." (emphasis added) 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason's finding that Modification 12 limited 
dissemination of PROMIS computer based software to the 20 offices 
at which Inslaw installed PROMIS ignores the essential nature of 
the contract. The 1982 contract was an implementation contract. 
It called for the contractor to install (and tailor) a public 
domain version of PROMIS in 20 offices. Although inslaw was only 
obligated to install the contract version of PROMIS at 20 cites, 
nothing in the contract purported to limit DOJ's right to self* 
install that public domain software at additional offices. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason suggested that a reading of 
Modification 12 "in the context of" the original contract leads to 
the conclusion that DOJ agreed to limit dissemination to the 20 
designated offices. This makes little sense. The original 
contract called for Inslaw to implement a version of PROMIS with 
which DOJ could do anything, including self -install at other sites. 

-149 - 

Nothing about this "context" suggests that in negotiating 
Modification 12 DOJ intended to give up its right to fully automate 
all U.S. Attorneys' offices with PROMIS if it so chose. Rather, 
against this background a much more reasonable interpretation of 
Modification 12 is that it operated to eliminate DOJ's right to 
disseminate PROMIS outside of U.S. Attorneys' offices, but not its 
right to self -install PROMIS within the jurisdiction of the EOUSA. 

Accordingly, we believe that DOJ's self - ins tallation of PROMIS 
did not violate Modification 12. 

C. The Alleged International Distribution of PROMIS by DOJ 

inslaw and others have made various allegations about the 
international distribution of PROMIS that are independent of the 
allegations about Earl Brian and Hadron. They allege that DOJ 
distributed a proprietary version of PROMIS to various foreign 
governments around the world for use in intelligence and law 
enforcement operations. We have found no evidence to support these 
claims . 

DOJ personnel (and internal memoranda) tell us that only 
public domain versions of PROMIS (Old PROMIS and the Pilot Project 
version) have been distributed. There is one documented 
international distribution. In May 1983 DOJ responded to a request 
from an Israeli official by giving him a copy of Old PROMIS. The 
House Committee found that "it was uncertain" what version DOJ 
actually turned over. Although we do not know what evidence the 
House Committee had before it when it made this statement, it 
appears to us that every available piece of evidence indicates that 

- 150 - 

it was the LEAA version. Indeed, the allegation that there was 
something sinister about the distribution to Israel leaves 
unanswered the question of why DOJ would go to all the trouble of 
documenting the fact that it was giving a copy of PROMIS to Israel 
if this was some sort of covert operation. As far as we can tell, 
the allegation that DOJ distributed enhanced PROMIS internationally 
is pure speculation, for which there is absolutely no evidentiary 
support . 70 

Admittedly, our investigation of the claimed international 
distribution of PROMIS by DOJ has not proceeded past the 
preliminary stages. We do not believe that it needs to. 
Theoretically, we could continue our investigation of this subject 
by contacting various foreign governments, asking them to provide 
us with the source code to their law enforcement software, and then 
hiring an expert to compare that software to PROMIS. We do not 
think this is a prudent course to take for a number of reasons, not 
the least of which is the failure of Inslaw's other allegations of 
excessive distribution and criminal conspiracies to withstand 
scrutiny. Given the enormity of undertaking a full scale 

70 The House Committee also investigated allegations that the 
Canadian Government was using PROMIS. According to the Committee 
Report, all of the Canadian government officials with whom 
Committee investigators spoke told them that the Canadian 
government was not using PROMIS or PROMIS derivatives. The Report 
indicates that the Committee was unsatisfied with the degree of 
cooperation provided by the Canadian government, and therefore felt 
that it was "thwarted in its attempts to support or reject the 
contention" that the Canadian government was using PROMIS. The 
Report identifies no reason why the Committee would believe that 
the Canadian officials with whom they spoke were less than 

- 151 - 

international investigation of these allegations, we feel that it 
would be an irresponsible use of the taxpayers' money to initiate 
this type of international fishing expedition where there is so 
little reason to believe that we would find evidence of a crime or 
other wrongdoing by the government. 

- 152 - 


Three months after announcing his ruling on liability in 
Inslaw's adversary proceeding, Bankruptcy Judge Bason was informed 
that he would not be reappointed as the bankruptcy judge for the 
District of Columbia. The Merit Selection Panel {the "Panel") that 
reviewed the candidates for the position had recommended another 
attorney as its top choice for the job. The D.C. Circuit's 
Judicial Council essentially agreed with that recommendation, and 
the Court of Appeals, which made the actual selection, adopted that 
choice. Almost immediately, Bason suggested that DOJ must have 
improperly influenced the selection process in retaliation for his 
ruling in Inslaw . 

We reviewed documents and interviewed numerous people who were 
involved in this matter, including those attorneys with DOJ who 
have been suspected of having obstructed Bason's reappointment. We 
found no evidence that anyone tried to influence the selection 
process inproper ly . 71 Indeed, we found evidence of only one 
relevant communication between anyone associated with DOJ and 

71 As part of our investigation, we reviewed certain records of 
the Merit selection Panel and of the u.s. Court of Appeals for the 
D.C. Circuit. Those records were made available to us only upon 
our promise that they would not be disclosed beyond the Office of 
the Attorney General without the permission of the Chief Judge of 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Those records 
largely confirmed information that we had already obtained from 
other sources, without a pledge of confidentiality. There was 
little new information. None of the new information- -such as the 
precise vote of the Court of Appeals or the comments of individual 
judges- -affected our analysis. Accordingly, we have avoided 
reporting any information which would require the permission of the 
Chief Judge prior to disclosure of that information beyond the 
Office of the Attorney General. 

- 153 - 

anyone involved in the selection process. Specifically, the then 
Chief of the Civil Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office for the 
District of Columbia, who had been nominated and was awaiting 
confirmation for the District Court, provided to the chair of the 
Panel a copy of Judge Bason's oral ruling on liability in the 
Inslaw case . 72 

The deliberations of the Panel and the Court are confidential. 
Nevertheless, we were provided access to confidential documents of 
the Panel and Court, and we interviewed members of the Panel. 
Although it was not part of our task to discover why Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason was not reappointed, we learned enough to reach 
conclusions on that subject. For example, we learned that 
opposition to Bason's reappointment was not limited to the Chief of 
the Civil Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District 
of Columbia. The Panel also heard from bankruptcy practitioners, 
including a former bankruptcy judge, who opposed Bason's 
reappointment for reasons wholly unrelated to Inslaw . Indeed, two 
members of the Panel advised us that the Inslaw ruling did not 
influence the Panel unfavorably toward Bason. In short, there is 
every indication that the decision was not influenced significantly 
by either DOJ or the ruling in ins law . 

72 Judge Bason did not issue his written opinion until after the 
Court of Appeals decided not to reappoint him. 

- 154 - 

A. The Selection Process 

1 . The Vacancy 

On February 8, 1984, George Francis Bason, Jr., was appointed 
to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of the District of 
Columbia's only bankruptcy judge, Roger Whelan. Shortly after that 
appointment. Congress passed the Bankruptcy Amendments and Federal 
Judgeship Act of 1984. That Act established the expiration of 
Judge Bason's term as four years after his appointment -- that is, 
February 8, 1988. The Act also authorized the Judicial Conference 
of the United states to prescribe regulations for the selection of 
bankruptcy judges. 

2 . The Merit Selection Panel 

In March 1985, the Judicial Conference promulgated regulations 
that permitted the judicial councils of each circuit to establish 
a merit selection panel to submit to the Judicial Council the names 
of the best qualified candidates, and for the Judicial Council to 
submit the names of the three best candidates to the Court of 
Appeals . 

The first opportunity for the federal judges in the District 
of Columbia to use this procedure was in 1987 -- prior to the 
expiration of Judge Bason's term. Judge Bason sought reappointment 
even before adoption of the selection process. He did so in May 
1987 by letter to Chief Judge Patricia Wald of the united States 
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. In June 1987, the Circuit 
Executive sent the Chief Judges of the District Court and the Court 

- 155 - 

of Appeals a memorandum proposing a selection process consistent 
with the regulations prescribed by the Judicial Conference. 

Following these procedures, Chief Judge Aubrey Robinson of the 
district court recommended four persons for membership in the Merit 
Selection Panel ("Panel"). Chief Judge Wald invited all four 
persons to serve on the panel, and each accepted the invitation. 
They were District Judge Norma H. Johnson, Dean Jerome A. Barron, 
Wesley Williams, Jr., and Thomas C. Papson. The letters of 
invitation were sent to the prospective panelists during the first 
week, of August 1987, just as testimony in the Inslaw case before 
Judge Bason was concluding. There has been no suggestion that the 
concurrence of these events was due to anything other than pure 

3 . The Panel's Consideration of the Inslaw Ruling 

Thereafter, the Panel solicited applications, interviewed the 
candidates and contacted references. Judge Norma Johnson, who 
chaired the Panel, also solicited her colleagues' views of Judge 
Bason. It was during this process that Judge Bason ruled orally 
that DOJ had stolen and converted Inslaw's software. His written 
opinion came later. Judge Johnson had previously read about the 
case in the newspaper, but she had no genuine understanding of the 
Bankruptcy Court's role in the case until Bankruptcy Judge Bason's 
oral ruling of September 28, 1987, was brought to her attention. 

Judge Johnson initially recalled to us that it was one of the 
district judges who recommended that she obtain a copy of the 
transcript of Judge Bason's oral ruling in Inslaw . Because 

- 156 - 

information presented to the Panel was viewed as confidential, 
Judge Johnson initially declined to disclose the judge who directed 
her to the Ins law ruling without first consulting that person. 
Upon contacting the judge who she believed provided the 
information, she discovered that she had been mistaken. It was not 
that judge who directed her to Bason's ruling; it was District 
Court Judge Royce Lambreth. 

a. AUSA reported Inslaw ruling to Civil Division 

Judge Royce Lambreth was confirmed for the United States 
District Court for the District of Columbia on November 13, 1987. 
On the date of Judge Bason's oral ruling, September 28, 1987, 
Lambreth was still the Chief of the Civil Division for the U.S. 
Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia. 

The U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia 
maintained a file on the inslaw case, but no one in that office 
performed any substantive work on the case. The file was opened 
because, by statute. Inslaw’s complaint against DOJ had to be 
served on that office. Patricia Froman, the Assistant U.S. 
Attorney who handled nearly all bankruptcy cases that were filed in 
the District of Columbia in which the United States was a creditor, 
was assigned the file when the complaint was received. Attorneys 
from DOJ immediately notified Froman that they would handle the 
case. They did so. This is not an unusual arrangement for 
complicated cases or, for that matter, for any case in which DOJ 
has prior involvement. DOJ assumed full responsibility for the 

- 157 - 

case, and the U.S. Attorney's Office assumed none. In fact, no one 
in the U.S. Attorney's Office followed the case formally. 

USAO Civil Chief Lambreth periodically spoke to Stuart 
Schiffer, the Deputy Assistant Attorney General of DOJ's Civil 
Division, about various cases. Inslaw was mentioned only in 
passing. Although he cannot recall any specific discussion of 
Inslaw, Schiffer advised us he almost certainly revealed his 
displeasure with Bason to Lambreth by joking that Lambreth' s office 
should assume responsibility for the problematic case. schiffer 
never encouraged Lambreth to speak to the Merit Selection Panel 
about Judge Bason. Nor did Lambreth indicate that he had or was 
going to speak to the Panel. The subject simply never arose . 73 

Ultimately, Lambreth did communicate with a Panel member, but 
this communication was not prompted by anything Schiffer said. 
Rather, Lambreth' s contact with the Chair of the Panel resulted 

73 Schif f er ' s knowledge of Judge Bason was limited to that 
derived from his experience with the Inslaw case. Schiffer 
believed that persons with greater experience with Bason would be 
better suited than he to assess Bason’s qualifications for the 
bench. He assumed (indeed, hoped) that if the Inslaw case was not 
an isolated incident, some person or persons who were knowledgeable 
about Bason would oppose Bason's reappointment. Schiffer advised us 
that he did not know Lambreth would complain about Bason and that 
he did not complain to Lambreth about Bason in the hope that 
Lambreth would address the Panel. Cynics may point to this 
communication between Lambreth and Schiffer as evidence that the 
Department secretly canpaigned to retaliate against Bason because 
of his rulings in Inslaw . We found no evidence of any such 
campaign. We also note that it is entirely appropriate for a 
Deputy Assistant Attorney General of the Department of Justice to 
discuss with a Civil Chief of a United States Attorney's Office 
cases that are pending in that Chief's district. Such discussions 
should be open and candid and might properly include criticisms of 
particular rulings. 

- 158 - 

from the special interest that one of the Assistants in Lambreth's 
Division had in the Inslaw case. 

That Assistant was Patricia Goodrich Carter. She had preceded 
C. Madison Brewer as project manager at EOUSA for the 
implementation of PROMIS. She had no contact with the project 
after Brewer replaced her until inslaw filed its complaint against 
DOJ. After the complaint was filed, one of the attorneys from DOJ 
questioned her to determine whether her testimony might be useful 
at trial. When it was determined that Carter would not be a 
witness at trial, she was advised that she was free to observe the 
trial. She attended the opening statements and heard at least 
William Hamilton's testimony. She was also present for Judge 
Bason's oral ruling on liability. 

Carter regarded Bason's ruling as truly unbelievable. She had 
heard Hamilton's testimony regarding Brewer's departure from the 
Institute, which sounded to her like a fairly amicable separation. 
She was amazed therefore at Judge Bason's conclusion that Brewer's 
conduct toward Inslaw resulted from personal animosity for having 
been fired. She was similarly amazed at the conclusion that DOJ 
stole inslaw' s software by trickery and fraud. 

Carter recalled that after hearing the oral ruling, she bumped 
into Royce Lambreth in a common area of their office. She told him 
about the ruling and expressed her amazement. He invited her to his 
office to describe the ruling in greater detail. Carter assumed 
that Lambreth's interest in the matter arose solely from his being 
Chief of the Civil Division and having a concern as a government 

- 159 - 

attorney about a decision from their district that harshly 
criticized the government. 

Thereafter, Lambreth received a copy of the transcript of the 
ruling. How and when he obtained the transcript are uncertain, for 
no one recalls precisely who obtained a copy of the ruling for the 
U.S. Attorney's Office. 74 Nevertheless, there is no question that 
one was obtained. Carter still has a copy. Pat Froman, who 
handled most bankruptcy cases in the District of Columbia for the 
government, also had a copy in her files prior to her retirement. 

b. Royce Lambreth reported Inslaw ruling to Judge 

Lambreth either delivered a copy of the transcript of Bason’s 
ruling to Judge Norma Johnson or suggested that she obtain a 
copy. 75 Although Lambreth did not comment on the ruling, it was 
clear to Judge Johnson from his tone or his words that he viewed 
the ruling as reflecting unfavorably on Judge Bason. 

74 Copies of the printed transcript of the opinion were 
delivered to Inslaw's attorney, DOJ's attorney and the Clerk of the 
Bankruptcy Court on the day following the ruling, that is, 
September 29, 1987. Lambreth recalled that he asked Pat Froman, 
the Assistant in that office who handled most bankruptcy cases in 
the District of Columbia for the government, to obtain the opinion. 
Froman recalled telling Lambreth, at his invitation, her 
unfavorable opinion of Judge Bason, but she has no recollection of 
being asked to obtain or of obtaining the Ins law ruling. 

75 Lambreth cannot now recall whether he delivered the 
transcript or merely referred Judge Johnson to it. Judge Johnson 
initially recalled that a young man from the Circuit Executive's 
office who assisted her obtained a copy after another judge 
suggested she obtain it. After contacting Judge Lambreth at our 
request, Judge Johnson recalled that he handed her a copy of the 
transcript and said something to the effect of "You ought to see 
this . ’’ 

- 160 - 

Lambreth brought Bason's ruling to Judge Johnson's attention 
because he wanted to avoid "blindsiding" the other judges on the 
committee that he imagined would vote on Judge Bason's 
reappointment. 76 More specifically, Lambreth correctly assumed 
that he would be confirmed and sworn in to the District Court prior 
to the selection of a bankruptcy judge for the district. He 
erroneously believed, however, that he would have a role in the 
selection process. Being unfamiliar with the new rules for the 
selection of bankruptcy judges, Lambreth believed that the District 
Judges would make that selection. He wanted Judge Johnson to be 
aware of Bason's ruling in Ins law so she and the other District 
Court judges would not be surprised when he joined the court and 
made known his opposition to Bason's reappointment. 

Lambreth' s opposition to Bason’s reappointment was not based 
exclusively on his reading of the Inslaw ruling. Lambreth also 
solicited the views of AUSA Patricia Froman who had worked in the 
U.S. Attorney's Office for many years and had appeared before many 

76 Judge Lambreth is not certain whether he directed Judge 
Johnson's attention to the Inslaw ruling before or after he became 
a judge. Although the fact has relatively minor significance for 
our purposes, we conclude that the event occurred while he was 
still with the U.S. Attorney's Office but shortly before he became 
a judge. Judge Johnson knows that she obtained and read the Inslaw 
ruling before Veterans' Day of 1987 because that is the day that 
the Panel held a hearing regarding Judge Bason. Judge Johnson had 
invited attorney Charles Work to appear at the hearing upon reading 
in Bason's oral ruling that Work represented Inslaw. Prior to 
reading Bason's oral ruling. Judge Johnson did not realize that 
Work, whom she knew previously as an Assistant U.S. Attorney, did 
any bankruptcy work. Because Judge Lambreth was not sworn in until 
November 16, 1987, it appears to us that he must have directed 
Judge Johnson's attention to Bason's ruling prior to his assuming 
the bench. 

- 161 - 

bankruptcy judges, including regular appearances before Judge 
Bason. Froman described Bason to Lambreth as courteous and likable 
but often unfair. She described Bason's tendency, in her opinion, 
to "bend over backwards" to favor debtors. According to Froman, 
she cited an egregious example and noted that Bason often allowed 
debtors "one more chance" after they had already been given many 
chances to comply with prior orders. Froman told Lambreth that the 
government would be better off if Bason were not reappointed. 

Lambreth did not discuss with either Froman or Carter the fact 
that he spoke with Judge Johnson. Indeed, both of them assumed 
that information regarding Judge Bason was of interest to Lambreth 
solely in his capacity as Chief of the Civil Division in the 
district in which Bason presided. Lambreth himself regarded his 
conversation with Judge Johnson as a confidential judge- to- judge 
communication on a matter in which they both had, or soon would 
have, an interest as judges. 

c. The Panel considered the Inslaw ruling 

After obtaining a copy of Judge Bason's oral ruling in inslaw . 
Judge Johnson circulated copies to the Panel members. It was the 
only judicial opinion that was circulated. Although Judge Johnson 
presented the opinion without commentary, at least one Panel member 
perceived that the opinion was presented, not because it revealed 
great wisdom or scholarship, but because it reflected unfavorably 
on Judge Bason’s suitability for the bench. 

According to three Panel members, the Panel discussed Bason's 
ruling at one of its meetings and found nothing untoward about it. 

- 162 - 

It appeared to the Panel to be simply one judge's opinion on a 
fact - specif ic matter about which the Panel did not know the facts. 
One Panel member said he derived little information about Bason 
from the opinion other than the fact that Bason was not timid. The 
Panel members agreed that the Inslaw opinion should not influence 
their evaluation of Judge Bason . 77 

We reviewed the materials of the Panel that have been 
maintained by the Circuit Executive. Those materials include notes 
of the Panel and of the Judicial Council. There is no indication 
that the Inslaw ruling played any role in the process. 

d. Our Conclusions Regarding Lambreth' s 
Communication With judge Johnson 

Assuming {contrary to the information we received) that the 
Inslaw ruling did influence the Panel's evaluation, we find nothing 
untoward in the fact that Royce Lambreth brought that ruling to the 
attention of Judge Johnson, who circulated it to the other Panel 
members. Lambreth had an interest in the matter which was 
different than that of most bankruptcy practitioners. He was soon 
to be a member of the District Court that presided over Judge 
Bason. He had every reason to try to influence the selection 
process to select a bankruptcy judge in whom he had confidence. 

Lambreth told us that he was motivated to speak with Judge 
Johnson exclusively because of his expectation that he would soon 

77 This statement is contradicted somewhat by the statement of 
Attorney Charles Work, who advised us that Judge Johnson asked that 
he speak to the Panel about Inslaw because Judge Bason's 
reappointment was "in trouble." Work assumed that the "trouble" 
resulted from the inslaw ruling. 

- 163 - 

preside on the District Court. We do not doubt his statement. 
Indeed, he apparently told no one in his office of his plans or of 
his communication with Judge Johnson, although he may have 
discussed Bason with other soon- to-be fellow judges. 

Regardless of Lambreth's motivation, he nonetheless was a 
government attorney at the time he spoke with Judge Johnson. Thus, 
we have considered whether it is proper for a government attorney 
privately to approach the Chair of a Merit Selection Panel to 
express his views. We conclude that such an approach is proper, 
and Lambreth's approach of Judge Johnson was proper even if he did 
so solely as a government attorney interested in opposing the 
appointment of a judge whom he regarded as unfair to the 
government . 18 

There is no legal or ethical obligation that prohibits an 
attorney from communicating his or her views or those of a client 
to a panel that is considering the appointment, reappointment or 
advancement of a judge about whom that attorney has information, 
whether positive or negative. Indeed, that is the way the merit 
selection system is supposed to work. All interested parties are 
encouraged to express their opinions, and the panel weighs those 
opinions and the source of those opinions and determines 
independently which candidate is best for the position. Obviously, 
a Merit Selection Panel cannot create a complete profile of a 

7B Whether DOJ itself may properly take a position in favor of 
or opposed to a particular judicial candidate is a different 
question as to which we express no opinion. 

- 164 - 

candidate if an entire class of interested persons self -censors its 

Insofar as Lambreth may be criticized for using his 
circumstance as a soon-to-be judicial officer to influence the 
Panel, we think the criticism is unfounded. As Chief of the Civil 
Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Bason's district, 
Lambreth was in a unique position to collect information regarding 
Judge Bason. He should not have been precluded from communicating 
that information to Judge Johnson simply because he expected soon 
to be her colleague. Indeed, as we have noted, that expectation 
gave him all the more reason to express his views. Additionally, 
Lambreth apparently collected information about Bason to satisfy 
himself that the Inslaw ruling was not an isolated incident. Yet, 
he communicated no information to Johnson other than the Inslaw 
ruling and a tone of voice that allowed Judge Johnson to surmise 
Lambreth’ s negative view of Bason's ruling. His conduct bespeaks 
restraint, not a campaign to unseat Bason in retaliation for the 
inslaw ruling. 

Finally, no one we interviewed described Judge Johnson as 
anything less than fiercely independent, a view that she shares. 
To the degree that Royce Lambreth attempted to influence Judge 
Johnson in his capacity as either an Executive Branch employee or 
a prospective judicial officer, the effort had little effect, 
according to Judge Johnson. She considered the Ins law ruling along 
with all the other information the Panel received. She obviously 
was not greatly influenced by the fact that the ruling came to her 

- 165 - 

from Lambreth. When we first spoke to her, she did not even recall 
that it was Lambreth who gave her the opinion. 79 

4 . Opposition to Bason From Outside DOJ 

Royce Lambreth was not the only person who communicated 
opposition to Judge Bason to the Panel. The Panel also solicited 
views from attorneys who practiced before Judge Bason. (For the 
other candidates, the Panel solicited comments from references, 
supervisors and opposing counsel, as is discussed below) . One 
lawyer who commented negatively about Judge Bason to the Panel was 
Roger Whelan, the bankruptcy judge who preceded Bason. Whelan, a 
practicing bankruptcy attorney, reportedly had received complaints 
about Bason from several of his colleagues. According to Whelan, 
these attorneys shared his view that Bason was pro -debtor and too 
slow in making decisions. Whelan reported these views to the Panel 
by telephone. 

Whether there is any truth to the charge that Judge Bason did 
not administer his docket efficiently is not especially relevant to 
our investigation. What is relevant is the perception that Judge 
Bason was a poor administrator. This perception, accurate or not, 
was made known to the Panel at least by former Judge Whelan and 

79 When Judge Johnson spoke to the Senate Subcommittee, she 
apparently also did not recall that the transcript came from 
Lambreth or she did not recall that Lambreth was a member of DOJ 
when he gave her the ruling. According to a memorandum authored by 
the Assistant Counsel of the Senate Subcommittee, Judge Johnson 
told the Subcommittee that she had no contacts with DOJ regarding 
Judge Bason and she received no negative input from DOJ regarding 
the Inslaw case. So far as we can tell from the House Report, she 
told that Committee the same thing. The Senate and the House 
Reports both found no evidence that anyone from DOJ had attempted 
to influence the selection process. 

- 166 - 

almost certainly by others. One Panel member who had not spoken to 
Whelan and was not aware of Whelan's views acknowledged to us that 
the Panel was concerned about Judge Bason's administrative 
abilities . 

We do not know the extent to which this perception influenced 
the Panel’s ultimate recommendation. As previously indicated, 
under the procedures adopted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit, the Panel's deliberations are 
confidential, and Panel members have declined to discuss their 
deliberations with us. The perception that Judge Bason was a poor 
administrator, however, almost certainly influenced the Panel's 
process . After soliciting views informally, the Panel invited 
bankruptcy practitioners to appear before it to address the Panel 
more formally regarding Judge Bason's qualifications. Such a 
proceeding would not likely have been suggested if the informal 
comments about Judge Bason had been uniformly positive. 

Sixteen lawyers accepted the Panel's invitation. One of them 
was Charles Work, an attorney for Inslaw, who appeared after being 
assured that DOJ had been afforded the same opportunity. DOJ 
declined to appear at the hearing in view of the pendency of the 

- 167 - 

Inslaw case. 80 The hearing was held on November 11, 19 87, and 
lasted several hours. 

One member of the Panel characterized the attorneys' comments 
about Judge Bason as predictably "guarded." 81 At least two of the 
attorneys at the hearing, however, reportedly did speak against 
Judge Bason. 

We do not know what impact, if any, this proceeding had on the 
Panel's recommendation. It is clear, however, that there was 
opposition to Judge Bason's reappointment, some of which was voiced 
at the hearing. None of that opposition was voiced by DOJ, because 
DOJ had declined to participate in the hearing. 

Obviously, the fact that DOJ did not participate in the formal 
selection process does not eliminate the possibility that DOJ waged 
a whispering campaign against Judge Bason. It would be odd, 
however, if DOJ had foregone an opportunity to fully express its 

80 ln retrospect, this appears to us to have been a prudent 
decision. Apparently, DOJ's unwillingness to communicate its views 
about Bason to the Panel arose from a combination of practical and 
ethical considerations. Included among the practical 
considerations was the fear that an unflattering review might 
somehow be revealed to the Bankruptcy Judge and he would extract 
vengeance in his written opinion in Ins law . The DOJ attorneys who 
were involved in the Inslaw case told us that they expected that 
Bason would be reappointed regardless of their views. 

81 Despite the Panel's pledge of confidentiality to the 
participants at the hearing, nothing more should have been 
expected. After all, attorneys who regularly practice in the 
federal courthouse were being asked to comment to a sitting 
district court judge and three attorneys, who may have been 
complete strangers, about the qualifications of the incumbent 
bankruptcy judge. At that point in the process, there was no 
certainty that Bankruptcy Judge Bason would not be reappointed and 
there was a good possibility that the very attorneys who spoke 
against him would be appearing before him in the near future. 

- 168 - 

views of Judge Bason in an ex parte proceeding with a pledge of 
confidentiality, in favor of a covert mission to unseat him. We 
found no evidence of any such covert effort by DOJ. 

5 . The Other Possible Opposition Effort 

We do not mean to suggest that former Bankruptcy Judge Roger 
Whelan single-handedly derailed Bankruptcy Judge Bason's 
reappointment. Based on our discussions with Panel members, he 
could not have done so. Indeed, if Whelan alone had raised 
concerns about Bankruptcy Judge Bason's administrative ability and 
all other respondents had praised his performance, the Panel would 
not likely have held a hearing to address the subject. 

Whelan's opposition to Judge Bason's reappointment is 
significant, however, for yet another reason. One witness alleged 
that Whelan threatened a concerted effort by persons outside DOJ to 
prevent Bankruptcy Judge Bason from being reappointed. 
Specifically, Charles Docter, an attorney for inslaw, reported to 
the House Committee on the Judiciary that in July 19 87, Whelan had 
threatened to oppose Bason's reappointment because Bason had not 
ruled on a fee petition filed by Whelan. 82 Docter reportedly 
informed the House Committee that Whelan came to his office in 
July, 1987, and complained about Bason's delay in ruling on a fee 
application filed by him in the UPI case. Whelan allegedly told 

S2 A summary of Docter' s statement to the House Committee was 
included in a draft chronology of events relating to the failure to 
reappoint Judge Bason. We obtained this unsigned document from a 
counsel to the Senate Subcommittee, who apparently obtained it from 
someone on the House Committee. Both Docter and Whelan confirmed 
that they testified in private before the House Committee. 

- 169 - 

Docter that Senior District Court Judge Irwin Gasch would organize 
the opposition to Bason's reappointment. 

Docter told Bankruptcy Judge Bason about his conversation with 
Whelan and recommended that Bason act promptly on Whelan's fee 
application. Bason ruled on Whelan's fee application on July 17, 
1987. Docter referred us to his testimony before the House 
Committee, but refused to provide us any additional information. 

Whelan reportedly testified before the House Committee and 
spoke to us. He acknowledged that he represented a party in the 
UPI case and that he had been frustrated by Judge Bason’s delay in 
ruling on an application he had filed in the case. He stated that 
the pleading was an application for compensation for his client and 
not an application for attorney's fees. He also acknowledged that 
he is a friend of Senior Judge Gasch. He denied, however, that he 
ever spoke with Charles Docter about the UPI case or that he ever 
tried indirectly to put pressure on Judge Bason to rule on his 
application for compensation in that case. 

We have not attempted to resolve this seeming disagreement 
between the statements of Doctor and Whelan. 83 For example, we 
have not interviewed Judge Gasch, requested Docter 's and Whelan's 
records for the relevant period, or asked Bason about the alleged 
nudge from Docter. This conflict bears only tangentially on 
whether DOJ improperly influenced or attempted to influence the 
selection process for the District of Columbia bankruptcy 

“without copies of the statements Doctor and Whelan gave to 
the House Committee, it is impossible to definitely conclude that 
there was a conflict in testimony. 

- 170 - 

judgeship. Nevertheless, the possibility of concerted opposition 
to Bason by district court judges or others might explain why he 
was not reappointed. 

6 . The Panel 1 s Recommendation 

Of the twelve candidates who applied for the position, the 
Panel concluded that six of them were worthy of further 
consideration. Bason was one of those six. The six finalists were 
invited for a second round of interviews by the Panel, after which 
the Panel voted on their choices. S. Martin Teel, Jr., an attorney 
in the Tax Division of DOJ, received the most votes. 

On or about November 24, 1987, the Panel submitted to the 
Judicial Council a list of four names in order of preference. The 
list included Judge Bason. S. Martin Teel, Jr. was listed first. 

7 . The Judicial Council's Recommendation 

The Judicial Council then consisted of the twelve active 
judges on the Court of Appeals and six judges of the District 
Court. On December 15, 1987, the Judicial Council considered the 
report of the Merit Selection Panel and, after approximately one 
and one -half hours of discussion, voted to recommend the first 
three names on the panel's list to the Court of Appeals for its 
consideration. Teel and Bason were included on the Judicial 
Council's list of three names. 

Tangentially, Bason reported to us that Chief Judge Aubrey 
Robinson and another judge whom he refused to identify later 
reported to him that most of the district court judges on the 
Judicial Council were "not in sympathy" with the Panel's 

- 171 - 

recommendation. Judge Bason was advised that some of the judges 
wanted to remand the matter to the Panel for reconsideration, we 
did not question Chief Judge Robinson or any other judge about 
these representations, as they are not relevant to the allegation 
that DOJ obstructed or attempted to obstruct Bason's reappointment. 
Moreover, if the judges were in fact unhappy initially with the 
Panel’s recommendations, they obviously were satisfied with the 
recommendations by the end of the meeting, for the Judicial Council 
voted without apparent dissent to essentially adopt the Panel’s 
recommendations . 

8 . The Selection By the Court of Appeals 

Each of the three finalists was interviewed by seven judges of 
the Court of Appeals. Some of the judges also contacted individual 
members of the Merit Selection Panel for details about their 
recommendations, on December 21, 1987, the judges of the Court of 
Appeals voted either in person or by telephone on the selection of 
the bankruptcy judge. Judge Teel won by a substantial majority. 

9 . The Confidential Memorandum 

During the House Committee's investigation of the non- 
reappointment of Judge Bason, one of the judges who was interviewed 
provided the Committee with a "confidential memorandum" dated 
December 8, 1987. We obtained a copy of this memorandum through 
the Circuit Executive. The memorandum describes each of the four 
finalists for the position of bankruptcy judge. Each description 
except that for Judge Bason begins with positive commentary. Judge 
Bason is described as "inclined to make mountains out of 

- 172 - 

molehills," "having a reputation for favoring debtors," and failing 
to take control of the poorly managed Bankruptcy Court Clerk’s 
Office. The memo also bears the direction, "Please read and 
destroy." Obviously, every copy was not destroyed. 

The House Report states that several members of the Panel were 
shown the memorandum, which was unsigned, but did not recognize it. 
The Report also states, seemingly inconsistently, that a member of 
the Panel identified the author of the memorandum as another member 
of the Panel. That person denied having written the memo. 

All four of the Panel members with whom we spoke stated that 
they were not familiar with the memo. Indeed, they did not recall 
even having been shown the memo by a House Committee investigator. 
One member of the Panel said that the memo sounded like a 
compilation of four of the summaries that were written by each of 
the Panel members about the candidates he or she was assigned to 
investigate. The memo's description of Judge Bason was consistent 
in general with this member's memory of the Panel's conclusions 
about Judge Bason. 

The House Report states that the memo apparently was given to 
several judges on the Court of Appeals after Judge Bason asked the 
Court to reconsider its decision not to reappoint him. Although 
the memo may have been circulated after Bason complained, it seems 
likely that it was prepared in anticipation of the Judicial 
Council's meeting. The Panel issued its report to the Judicial 
Council on November 28, 1987. The confidential memo is dated 
December 8, 1987. The Judicial Council met to discuss the Panel's 

- 173 - 

recommendations on December 15, 1987. in light of these dates and 
the memo's statement that "its purpose is to 'help' elucidate in 
particular our reasoning in ranking the candidates as we did, " we 
assume that the memo was prepared for and provided to the Judicial 
Council or, at least, certain members of that Council. 

Without knowing the author of the memo, we cannot reach many 
conclusions about it. For example, we do not know whose views are 
reflected in the memo, although the text of the memo suggests that 
it is intended to reflect only an individual Panel member's views. 
Nevertheless, even assuming that the memo did influence the 
selection process, it is difficult to imagine how the influence was 
improper or how DOJ played a role in the matter. There is no 
indication that someone from DOJ either prepared or planted the 
memo. The views expressed in the memo do not contain any criticism 
of Bankruptcy Judge Bason’s rulings in. the Inslaw matter. 

The House committee commented particularly on the criticism of 
Bason in the confidential memo in contrast to the description of 
the other candidates. This circumstance, however, does not strike 
us as unusual. For the Panel to have recommended against an 
incumbent bankruptcy judge in favor of a government lawyer with 
less bankruptcy experience and no judicial experience, it must have 
had some reason for doing so. No one has suggested that the 
Panel's recommendation was the result of personal vengeance or a 
mere desire to bring a fresh face into the federal courthouse. 
Accordingly, it should come as no surprise that the Panel, or at 
least one of its members, found reasons to criticize Bason. Again, 

-174 - 

we reach no conclusions about the validity of any of these 
criticisms, we note only that the Panel’s apparent perception that 
Judge Bason was an inefficient administrator was not totally 
baseless, and, more importantly, was not attributable to a DOJ 
campaign against Bason. The Panel had heard that criticism at 
least from former Bankruptcy Judge Whelan who reported his own 
evaluation of Bason and those of other bankruptcy practitioners whp 
reportedly had communicated their views to him. 

B. The Initial Allegation 

On December 28, 1987, Chief Judge Wald informed Judge Bason of 
the Court's decision. On January 12, 1988, Judge Bason sent a 14- 
page letter to Chief Judge Wald with copies to every judge on the 
Court of Appeals. For the most part, the letter underscored Judge 
Bason's qualifications and his supervisory administrative 
abilities, the lack of which he claimed was the only stated reason 
for his not being reappointed. 

The letter also raised for the first time the allegation that 
DOJ may have obstructed Bason's reappointment. Specifically, the 
letter stated: 

A number of lawyers and others have suggested 
to me that there may be a more sinister, 
hidden force behind what has happened. They 
suggest that somehow the Department of Justice 
has undertaken to influence the judicial 
selection process as a means of retaliation 
against me for my recent rulings in Inslaw, 

Inc. , v. United States Department of Justice . 

In response to our questions, Bason recently identified three 
people as the "lawyers and others" to whom he referred in his 
letter. They are Nelson Deckelbaum, Marcie Docter (an attorney for 

- 175 - 

inslaw ) and Nelson Kline. According to Bason, each of these people 
separately commiserated with Bason and speculated that his decision 
in inslaw must have been the cause of his not being reappointed. 
None of these three people provided Bason with any support for 
their suspicions. in fact, when Bason asked Deckelbaum for the 
grounds for his remark, Deckelbaum admitted that he had no 
evidence; it was just a feeling. 

Bason also believes that there was a general feeling among the 
bankruptcy bar in the District of Columbia that he should have been 
reappointed. Bason bases this statement on a conversation he had 
with a reporter for the Washington Post whose name he could not 
recall. Presumably, the reporter was Elizabeth Tucker, who 
investigated the matter for the Post . She told Bason that she had 
called twenty to thirty attorneys and that they all said that Bason 
was an excellent judge and that they could not understand why he 
was not reappointed. 

C. DOJ 1 s Motion to Recuse Bason 

Soon after receiving a copy of Judge Bason’s letter to Chief 
Judge Wald, DOJ moved to recuse Bason from further proceedings in 
Inslaw . The motion's purpose, of course, was to disqualify him 
from the case before he could either issue a written order 
consistent with his oral ruling against DOJ or rule on the damages 
portion of the case. 

1 . Prior Consideration of a Recusal Motion 

This was not the first time that DOJ had considered moving to 
disqualify Judge Bason in Inslaw , indeed, in June of 1987, DOJ was 

- 176 - 

considering internally whether there was a sufficient legal basis 
for moving to disqualify judge Bason. The trial on the merits of 
Inslaw’s complaint had not yet begun, but attorneys for DOJ already 
had reason to predict an adverse outcome at trial. As early as 
July 2, 1985, Judge Bason found William Hamilton's testimony to be 
"highly credible" and concluded that a former Inslaw employee who 
was then working for DOJ possibly had a "personal vendetta" against 
Inslaw. Various other rulings and comments by Judge Bason gave 
DOJ's attorney’s no reason to hope for a favorable ruling on the 
merits. Nevertheless, pursuant to the recommendation of DOJ's 
Director of the Commercial Litigation Branch, Michael Hertz, DOJ 
concluded that it then had insufficient legal grounds for seeking 
Judge Bason's disqualification. In particular, DOJ knew of no 
extrajudicial basis for the Judge's perceived bias against DOJ. 

2 . Letter to Wald as Basis for Recusal 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason's letter to Chief Judge Wald provided 
such a basis. In light of Bankruptcy Judge Bason's assertion that 
DOJ may have played a role in unseating him, combined with the fact 
that the information came from outside the courtroom, we believe 
DOJ had a satisfactory basis for moving to disqualify him. See 28 
U.S.C. § 455(a) and (b)(1). 

This is not to say, however, that DOJ necessarily should have 
prevailed on the motion. Bankruptcy Judge Bason's statement in his 
letter to Chief Judge Wald fell short of an explicit accusation of 
DOJ or even a conclusion by him that DOJ played a role in the 
selection process. The letter could be read as merely a reflection 

- 177 - 

of rumors he had heard from others and not as a reflection of his 
personal views. 

The fact that DOJ would likely lose its motion to disqualify, 
which DOJ's attorneys probably predicted, counseled against filing 
the motion. Nevertheless, Bankruptcy Judge Bason had already 
signalled by his prior orders and his oral ruling in Ins law that 
DOJ was going to lose on the merits of the case and lose badly in 
his courtroom. DOJ must have realized that it already lacked 
credibility before Bason in the case and concluded that it would be 
better off before any other judge. Thus, despite the odds against 
success, DOJ had little to lose by trying to disqualify the judge. 

With the benefit of hindsight, we know that DOJ's hopes of 
disqualifying Bankruptcy Judge Bason were not realistic. 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason predictably denied the motion. Chief Judge 
Robinson of the District Court denied DOJ's request for a writ of 
mandamus, ruling that DOJ’s declaration in support of its 
disqualification motion was "inadequate." DOJ raised the issue 
again in its direct appeal of the final order to the District 
Court. District Judge William Bryant, who was assigned the case on 
appeal, found "no basis in fact to support" the motion for recusal. 

Despite these adverse rulings, we do not conclude that DOJ 
acted improperly or even imprudently in seeking disqualification. 
The recusal effort, while admittedly a long shot, was not 
absolutely destined to fail. Rather, it was an understandable and 
reasonable attempt to avoid further adverse rulings from a judge 
who DOJ had little reason to believe would be inclined to rule in 

- 178 - 

its favor. under those same circumstances, we likely would have 
filed the same motion. 

3 . House Judiciary Committee's Implied Criticism 
Immediately preceding the conclusion of its Investigative 
Report, the House Committee on the Judiciary details DOJ's efforts 
to disqualify Bankruptcy Judge Bason. The report reaches no 
conclusion about DOJ's efforts in this regard. Indeed, it 
expresses no explicit criticism of DOJ on this issue. 
Nevertheless, criticism is implicit in the report's discussion of 
the subject. 

The report first details DOJ's internal consideration of the 

recusal issue and its conclusion that there were insufficient 

grounds for recusal. It then states: 

On October 29, 1987, [Deputy Assistant Attorney 

General of the Civil Division Stuart] Schiffer wrote in 
a memorandum to the Chief of the Civil Division that: 

Bason has scheduled the next [INSLAW3 
trial for February 2 [19883 . coincidentally, 
it has been my understanding that February 1 
[19883 is the date on which he [Bason3 win 
either be reappointed or replaced. 

Judge Bason learned from Chief Judge Patricia Wald, 

U.S. Court of Appeals, that he would not be reappointed 
to the bankruptcy bench on December 28, 1987. 

On January 19, 1988, the Department filed a motion 
that Judge Bason recuse himself from further 
participation in the case, citing that he was biased 
against the Department. This motion was filed even 
though Michael Hertz [the Director of the Department's 
Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division] had 
previously advised against such a move. 

The important detail that the House Committee Report neglects 
to mention is the fact that Bankruptcy Judge Bason's letter to 

- 179 - 

Chief Judge Wald was written after Hertz recommended against the 
recusal effort. That letter significantly changed the analysis. 
DOJ might be criticized, although we think unfairly, for filing a 
motion that had little chance of success. It should not be 
criticized for filing such a motion in the face of Hertz's 
recommendation. DOJ's motion was based on Judge Bason's letter, 
not on the facts that Hertz had before him when he analyzed the 
disqualification issue. 

D. Bason's Lawsuit 

Bason's letter to Chief Judge Wald and the rest of the Court 
did not result in his reinstatement. On February 1, 1988 -- seven 
days before the expiration of his term -- Bason filed a lawsuit and 
a motion for a temporary restraining order in the federal district 
court seeking to enjoin Martin Teel from being sworn in. 84 Judge 
Bason's complaint incorporated his letter of January 12, 1988, to 
Chief Judge Wald, but it did not otherwise allege or refer to the 
allegation that DOJ interfered with the appointment process. 

Bason's lawsuit was unsuccessful. He left the bench on 
February 8. On January 25, 1988, just prior to his departure, he 
issued a written opinion in favor of Inslaw and sharply critical of 
DOJ. During the week before his departure, he issued an award of 
damages and attorneys' fees against DOJ. 

84 Bason filed a similar lawsuit when he was denied tenure by 
American University College of Law in 1972. As with his suit 
against the Court, he challenged the process and the fact that he 
was not provided with reasons for being denied tenure. After 
summary judgment for the University was reversed and remanded for 
trial, the parties settled out of court. 

- 180 - 

E . More Detailed Allegations 

Bason added details to his allegations about the DOJ's 
involvement in the decision not to reappoint him when he testified 
and spoke to the House committee on the Judiciary. 

1 . The Overheard Remark of a DOJ Attorney 

Bason told the committee, and repeated to us, that one of 
William Hamilton’s children overheard a DOJ attorney state during 
a March 1987 hearing in the Inslaw case that "We've got to get rid 
of this judge." 

As inappropriate as such a remark is, it does not evidence an 
intent to obstruct Bason's reappointment. The reappointment 
process had not even begun at the time the remark was allegedly 
made. Nor had Bason yet expressed an interest in reappointment, 
although such an interest was predictable. Additionally, DOJ’s 
frustration with Bankruptcy Judge Bason was likely palpable by the 
Spring of 1987. We do not know if the remark was made and, if it 
was, who made the remark or in what context, but we would not be 
surprised if the frustration DOJ attorneys felt found expression in 
an articulated desire to "get rid" of Judge Bason, meaning only 
that the attorney wished that the case were assigned to another 
judge. No one can dispute that doj would have liked to have the 
case reassigned. It formally evaluated the possibility of 
achieving that end soon after the remark was allegedly made. 
However injudicious the alleged remark may have been, it does not, 
in our opinion, provide any evidence of improper doj involvement in 
the decision not to reappoint Bankruptcy Judge Bason. 

- 181 - 

2 . Reporter Chris Welles 

Bason also advised the House Committee and us that Chris 
Welles, a reporter with Business week Magazine , told him that a 
high-level DOJ official boasted to him that DOJ had been 
responsible for his non- reappointment . We asked Welles about this 
statement. He could not recall ever having made it. He responded 
that, if he had had such a credible source, he would have published 
the statement in his article about Inslaw. No such statement was 
published. To the contrary, Welles' article states that "[T]here 
is no evidence that Justice influenced the selection made by the 
Court of Appeals.” 

Welles speculated that Bason may have misinterpreted Welles' 
questions or comments during their discussion of Bason's non- 
reappointment. For example, Welles may have spoken to someone at 
DOJ who commented on the 'outrageousness of Bason's Inslaw opinion 
and who said the Court of Appeals must have been influenced by that 
opinion. Welles advised us that, although he could not recall 
having done so, he may have related such a statement to Bason, who 
interpreted Welles as saying that a source in doj confirmed that 
the Inslaw ruling (and DOJ) influenced the Court of Appeals. 
Welles said no such thing. He had no such source. As he told us, 
he would have loved to have had such a source. 

3 . Stuart Schiffer 

Bason also told the Committee and us that Welles speculated 
that Judge Johnson was approached privately and informally by one 
of her "old and trusted friends from her days in the Justice 

- 182 - 

Department." It has been suggested to the Committee and to us that 
the most likely candidate for such an approach is Stuart Schiffer, 
then the Deputy Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division, 
who had supervisory responsibility over the inslaw case. 

Judge Johnson and Stuart Schiffer were office partners when 
both began their legal careers as staff attorneys with DOJ in the 
early 1960's. They have stayed in touch over the years, mostly 
when Judge Johnson has called Schiffer to recommend one of her 
clerks for employment with DOJ. 

Judge Johnson did call Schiffer during the merit selection 
process. As soon as Johnson told schiffer the general subject of 
her call, the selection of a Bankruptcy Judge, he advised her that 
DOJ had a sensitive matter pending in front of Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason. Judge Johnson replied that she was not calling about Bason 
and that she did not want to hear anything about Bason; she wanted 
Schiffer' s candid appraisal of two candidates from DOJ who were on 
the Panel's "short list." One of them was Martin Teel. Schiffer, 
who has always worked in the Civil Division, knew nothing about 
Teel, who worked in the Tax Division. He explained DOj's divisions 
to Judge Johnson and provided an evaluation of the other candidate 
about whom Judge Johnson inquired. Schiffer said nothing about 

Schiffer is identified in the House Report as a DOJ official 
who may have soured Judge Johnson on Bankruptcy Judge Bason. Yet, 
the Committee never questioned Schiffer. Indeed, according to 

- 183 - 

Schiffer, no one ever asked him about his conversation with Judge 
Johnson prior to our interview. 

The House Report states, "The committee has no information 
that Judge Johnson talked to Mr. Schiffer about Inslaw, Judge Bason 
or the bankruptcy judge selection process." Although this 
statement can be read as consistent with Johnson's and Schiffer' s 
statements to us, we question whether the Committee was fully aware 
of all the facts concerning the Merit Selection Panel's review of 
the background of candidates . A conversation about two candidates 
for the bankruptcy judgeship is not necessarily a conversation 
about "the bankruptcy judge selection process." We do not know 
whether the Committee intended such narrow meaning or whether it 
simply did not learn of any contact between Judge Johnson and 
Schiffer. Judge Johnson cannot now recall what the Committee asked 
her. As noted previously, Schiffer was not interviewed by the 
Committee. We have asked the General Counsel to the House 
Judiciary Committee for copies of witness statements. We have not, 
however, received a response. 

4 . Judge Tim Murphy 

Bason also suggested that former D.C. Superior Court Judge Tim 
Murphy was another possible candidate for a private approach by DOJ 
to Judge Johnson. Johnson and Murphy had been colleagues when 
Johnson served in D.C Superior Court. Murphy left the bench in 
1985 and went to work for DOj with C. Madison Brewer as Assistant 
Director on implementation of the PROMTS software. Obviously, 

- 184 - 

Murphy was in a position to and did know about DOJ's problems and 
frustration with Judge Bason. 

The suggestion that Murphy may have influenced the bankruptcy 
judge selection process appears to us to be nothing but rank 
speculation. Murphy advised us that he was not especially close to 
Judge Johnson, although they had been colleagues many years ago and 
even though he had worked with her husband. He advised that Judge 
Johnson is extremely independent and she never consulted him about 
anything, except possibly when they were on Superior Court 
committees together. Murphy stated that he had no contact with 
Judge Johnson about the bankruptcy judge selection process; he did 
not even know that she was involved in that process until we 
questioned him. 

5 . Kevin Reynolds /William Hamilton 

More recently. Bason reported that he had heard third-hand 
that someone at doj bragged that he knew all about Bason's non- 
reappointment and that accomplishing that feat had been "as easy as 
turning off a light switch." Bason identified Kevin Reynolds as 
the source of this statement and understood that Reynolds received 
the information from William Hamilton. 

Reynolds, who now practices law in Hartford, investigated the 
Inslaw matter as an aide to Senator Dodd of Connecticut and later 
as a summer law clerk at McDermott, Will & Emery when that firm was 
preparing Inslaw's Petition for Writ of Mandamus. Reynolds 
acknowledged to us that he periodically speaks with and receives 
information from William Hamilton. He also has spoken with Bason, 

- 185 - 

although not recently. He stated that, while he was investigating 
the Inslaw matter, he received information from a large number of 
sources, some of whom he characterized as "not credible." Reynolds 
could not recall ever hearing or using the expression "as easy as 
turning off a light switch." Nor could he recall ever hearing that 
someone at DOJ bragged about having played a role in Judge Bason’s 
non- reappointment . Reynolds had heard only that District Judge 
Stanley Sporkin had supposedly mentioned that It was generally 
"accepted" that Bankruptcy Judge Bason was removed from the bench 
by DOJ. 

We spoke with Judge Sporkin. He had no recollection of any 
involvement or knowledge regarding the bankruptcy judge selection 
process. He barely knew of Bason, and had little, if any, interest 
in the process. He said he never commented or even speculated 
about the cause of Bason's failure to achieve reappointment as a 
Bankruptcy Judge. 

6 . William Haxnilton/Gamett Taylor 

We asked William Hamilton about the statement that Judge Bason 
attributed to him through Reynolds. By letter, Hamilton stated 
that former DOJ security officer Garnett Taylor knew that Anthony 
Moscato, who is now Acting Director of EOUSA, played an affirmative 
role on behalf of DOJ in denying Judge Bason's reappointment. 
Hamilton explained that he had obtained this information from a 
"senior U.S. Government official, holding a position of 
considerable responsibility." Hamilton suggested that we issue a 
subpoena for Taylor to appear before the grand jury. Hamilton 

- 186 - 

stated that, if subpoenaed and interrogated under oath, Taylor 
would reveal the information that he knew. 

Fa 4- B. Crim. 

Pursuant to 
a. 6(e) 

Hamilton refused to identify the "senior U.S. Government 
official" who was the source of this information. In his letter to 
us, he stated that he contacted his source and "the source declined 
to permit Hamilton to furnish his name to [us] . " More recently, we 
again asked Hamilton to determine whether the source might reveal 
himself or, at least, agree to speak to us by telephone without our 
knowing or being able to determine his location or identity. 
Hamilton responded that his source's position was unchanged. 85 

We also contacted Anthony Moscato. According to Moscato, he 
had nothing whatsoever to do with the selection of bankruptcy 
judges. He convincingly stated that he is not familiar with Judge 
Norma Johnson, did not know that she chaired a selection panel, and 
did not even know there was a Merit Selection Panel. He stated 
that he spoke to no one about Bason's qualifications for 
reappointment. He cannot explain why his and Garnett Taylor's 
names would be used in the same sentence as Bankruptcy Judge Bason. 
Taylor and he are not even social friends, much less confidants. 

85 We had hoped to meet with the Hamiltons to question them 
further about this source and other matters relevant to our 
investigation. After scheduling conflicts delayed our meeting, the 
Hamiltons, through their attorney, advised us that they would not 
meet with us, preferring to deal directly with the new Attorney 
General . 

- 187 - 

F . Conclusion 

The Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate 
Committee on Governmental Affairs devoted substantial time and 
effort to the investigation of the allegation regarding the non- 
reappointment of Bankruptcy Judge Bason. So did the House 
Judiciary Committee. Neither committee found any evidence to 
support the allegation that DOJ obstructed the reappointment of 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason in retaliation for his ruling in ins law . 
The only evidence that we found of anyone within DOJ trying to 
influence the selection process against Judge Bason was the 
evidence relating to Royce Lambreth. For the reasons stated above, 
we do not believe that Royce Lambreth' s conduct was improper. 
District Judge Johnson of the Merit Selection Panel and Chief Judge 
Wald of the Court of Appeals both unequivocally deny that DOJ 
obstructed or attempted to obstruct the reappointment of Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason. 

The allegation that DOJ improperly interfered with the 
judicial selection process was not first lodged by an independent, 
unbiased observer of the selection process. It was made by 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason himself, who is convinced that he was the 
best qualified candidate and who was understandably disappointed 
when he was not selected. The allegation has been fed by William 
Hamilton who has claimed, but declined to provide proof, that a 
high-level government official with whom he has allegedly spoken 
can confirm the claim. We believe that the great weight of the 

- 188 - 

evidence clearly supports the conclusion that there was no attempt 
by DOJ to obstruct Judge Bason's reappointment. 

- 189 - 




Inslaw alleges, and Bankruptcy Judge Bason found, that "DOJ, 
acting through its employees, unlawfully, intentionally and 
willfully sought to cause the conversion of Inslaw's Chapter 11 
reorganization case to a Chapter 7 liquidation case without 
justification and by improper means." Inslaw further alleged that 
after it brought this misconduct to the attention of the bankruptcy 
court, DOJ employees committed perjury in order to conceal the 
truth of what happened, and that DOJ subsequently fired a 
"whistleblower" in retaliation for his exposing the scheme to 
convert the bankruptcy. We reviewed the evidence from the numerous 
investigations that previously looked into these allegations, as 
well as conducting our own interviews of those involved. Although 
the matter is riot free from doubt, we conclude that there is 
insufficient evidence to support a finding that DOJ planned or 
attempted to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy case or engaged in any 
cover-up to conceal the conduct alleged. 

A. Background 

When inslaw filed its bankruptcy petition in February, 1985, 
it sought to reorganize under the provisions of chapter 11 of the 
Bankruptcy Code. It did not seek to liquidate under chapter 7. 
Pursuant to the usual bankruptcy procedures, the United States 
Trustee with responsibility for the District of Columbia, 
technically a DOJ employee, was assigned to monitor Inslaw's 
bankruptcy case. 

- 190 - 

At the time of Inslaw's bankruptcy petition, the United States 
Trustee program was still experimental. Under that program, which 
has since been extended, the United States Trustee is an impartial 
third party that monitors and supervises the administration of 
bankruptcy cases. In a chapter 7 case, for example, the United 
States Trustee appoints a private trustee to liquidate the estate. 
In a chapter 11 case, on the other hand, the united States Trustee 
is responsible for monitoring the debtor in possession's business 
operation and its submission of operating reports, fee 
applications, plans, and disclosure statements. in chapter 11 
cases the United States Trustee also has certain responsibilities 
in connection with the creditors' committees. The United States 
Trustee does not have the power to convert a chapter 11 bankruptcy 
reorganization to a chapter 7 liquidation. The trustee does, 
however, have the authority to request the bankruptcy court to 
order such a conversion. Such a motion by the United States 
Trustee is properly made only when the United States Trustee 
believes that a conversion is in the best interests of the 
creditors and the estate. Although the United States Trustee 
program is administered by DOJ, it would be improper for the United 
States Trustee to seek a conversion solely for the purpose of 
helping DOJ to avoid contract obligations to a debtor. 

1. The Primary Allegation 

In the Inslaw bankruptcy case, the u.s. Trustee never moved to 
convert the case from a reorganization to a liquidation. 
Nevertheless, some two years after it filed its petition. Inslaw 

- 191 - 

alleged that DOJ improperly plotted to convert Inslaw's chapter 11 
reorganization into a chapter 7 liquidation. 

The allegation arose from a private conversation that William 
and Nancy Hamilton had with Anthony Pasciuto, a DOJ employee who 
was then Deputy Director of the Executive Office of U.S. Trustees 
(EOUST) . According to later testimony by Nancy Hamilton, Pasciuto 
told the Kami 1 tons that the Director of EOUST, Thomas Stanton, had 
pressured the U.S. Trustee assigned to the Xnslaw case, William 
White, to convert it to chapter 7. Pasciuto also told the 
Hamiltons that Stanton had tried to detail a talented attorney from 
the U.S. Trustee's Office in the Southern District of New York to 
Washington, D.C., to work on converting the Inslaw case. 

This allegation found support in the initial deposition 
testimony of Cornelius Blackshear, now a Bankruptcy Judge for the 
Southern District of New York, and previously the U.S. Trustee in 
the Southern District of New York. Blackshear swore during his 
deposition that the U.S. Trustee with responsibility for the 
District of Columbia, White, had called him and stated that EOUST 
Director Stanton wanted the Inslaw case converted and wanted a 
particular attorney from Blackshear' s office assigned to handle the 

According to Inslaw's allegations, White rejected Stanton's 
suggestion. When White later requested that language be added to 
a confidentiality order to prohibit disclosure of confidential 
Inslaw materials to DOJ employees other than those associated with 
the U.S. Trustee's Office, this request was viewed as support for 

* 192 - 

the allegation that EOUST Director Stanton had importuned U.S. 
Trustee White to do DOJ's bidding and that White wanted to protect 
himself from further importuning. 

According to the findings of Bankruptcy Judge Bason, the 
"smoking gun" that allegedly links this plot to DOJ are Peter 
Videnieks’ notes of a conversation between Videnieks and Jack Rugh, 
which took place shortly after Inslaw filed for relief under the 
Bankruptcy Code. Those notes reflect two items: (1) that Brewer 
spoke to EOUST Director Stanton, and (2) that the Inslaw case would 
be converted from chapter 11 to chapter 7. As discussed below, one 
cannot tell from the notes alone what the connection is, if any, 
between the first and the second item. 

In fact. Brewer and Stanton did speak about the Inslaw case 
soon after the petition was filed. Both men, however, deny any 
mention of conversion or liquidation. Rugh and Videnieks say that 
the first item in Videnieks' notes (that Brewer and Stanton talked) 
was something Brewer told Rugh (and which Rugh then relayed to 
Videnieks), but that the second item in the notes reflects Rugh's 
expression of Rugh's own opinion. Nevertheless, Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason found that the notes were proof that Brewer originated a plan 
to liquidate inslaw and he enlisted Stanton in that effort. 

2 . The Cover-Up Allegations 

The alleged plot thickened almost Immediately after its 
discovery, when Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear quickly recanted his 
deposition testimony. After discussing his deposition testimony 
with D.c. Trustee White and an AUSA who represented him during his 

- 193 - 

deposition, Blackshear submitted an affidavit recanting his 
testimony and asserting that he had mistaken the Inslaw case for 
the UPI case. Inslaw cried foul, alleging that DOJ had procured a 
perjurious recantation to cover up its plot to liquidate Inslaw. 

The claim of cover-up was later buttressed by the termination 
of Anthony Pasciuto' s employment following an OPR investigation. 
The OPR investigation of Pasciuto was initiated after Pasciuto 
admitted in open court that he had made inaccurate statements to 
the Hamiltons, and that in meeting the Hamiltons he had wanted to 
hurt his boss, Thomas Stanton. Inslaw alleged that Pasciuto was 
fired because he blew the whistle on DOJ’s wrongdoing. 

3 . The Bankruptcy Court Decision 

The Bankruptcy Court heard evidence on the matter during a 
hearing on Inslaw's petition for "Independent Handling"® 6 and 
concluded that "DOJ acting through its employees unlawfully, 
intentionally and willfully sought to cause the conversion of 
inslaw's chapter 11 re-organization case to a chapter 7 liquidation 
case without justification by inproper means." The court's 
conclusion was based on several subsidiary findings. Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason found that Stanton struck a bargain with Brewer. The 
agreement was for Stanton to make efforts to liquidate Inslaw in 

86 This hearing was held in response to Inslaw's request that 
its complaint against DOJ be handled "entirely independent of any 
DOJ officials who [were] involved in the allegations" in the 
complaint. This hearing came to be known as the "Independent 
Handling proceeding, " although Inslaw ultimately dropped its 
request for that particular form of relief. It was during this 
hearing in June, 1987, that Bankruptcy Judge Bason heard evidence 
of DOJ 1 s alleged effort to convert Inslaw to chapter 7. 

- 194 - 


to rid D0J of its contract problems with Inslaw. 
gj an >£.ruptcy Court found that Stanton made this commitment to curry 
^ aV -or with the EOUSA and with higher DOJ officials in order to win 
t h^ support of these officials for anticipated legislation that was 
tc? make permanent the then - temporary United States Trustee program, 
w txich he headed. To effect this liquidation. Bankruptcy Judge 
0 ason concluded, Stanton agreed to put pressure on his subordinate, 
vtfilliam White, to liquidate Inslaw. The court found that when 
White resisted Stanton's pressure, Stanton sought to have Harry 
Jones, an Assistant U.S. Trustee in New York, detailed to either 
White's office in Alexandria or to Stanton's office at EOUST, in 
order for Jones to accomplish the conversion. Although none of the 
DOJ employees who would have been parties to or affected by the 
alleged agreement testified that there was such an agreement, or 
that the actions supposedly contemplated were ever discussed. 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason decided that the testimony of these DOJ 
employees was unworthy of belief, and, in essence, that they had 
lied , 87 

57 The Bankruptcy court Judge found the testimony of Stanton, 
one of the principal government witnesses in the Independent 
Handling proceedings, to be "evasive and unbelievable." The Court 
also found Rugh, another government witness, to have given 
testimony that was "simply on its face not believable." 
Specifically, the Court stated that "Rugh was perhaps the Elliott 
Abrams of this Bankruptcy Court because, although he managed to 
maintain his composure throughout, his testimony is simply on its 
face not believable." The Court did not find that Blackshear had 
lied, however. The Court stated: 

[Bjecause Judge Blackshear 's original 
testimony is in accord with the other credible 
evidence, and his recantation is not, this 

(continued. . . ) 

- 195 - 

4 . The OPR Investi gration 

In response to the Bankruptcy Court's ruling- -and a complaint 
filed by William Hamilton- -DO J' s Office of Professional 
Responsibility investigated the allegations that Stanton, Brewer, 
Rugh and Videnieks tried to obstruct the Inslaw bankruptcy 
proceedings by attempting to have Inslaw converted to a chapter 7 
proceeding. A related allegation- -based on Judge Bason's disbelief 
of a number of DOJ witnesses - -was that certain DOJ employees and 
officials had lied during the Independent Handling proceeding to 
cover up the conversion attempt. 

Also, in July of 1987, pursuant to a referral from the office 
of the Deputy Attorney General, OPR initiated an investigation into 
allegations involving Anthony Pasciuto, who at the time was still 
Deputy Director for Administration of EOUST. Specifically, these 
allegations - -which were subsequently spelled out by Thomas Stanton 
--were that: (i) Pasciuto's meeting with the Hamiltons violated the 
Standards of Conduct for Department employees; (ii) Pasciuto 
provided official non-public information to the Hamiltons in 
violation of the Standards of Conduct; (iii) Pasciuto violated 18 
U.S.C. § 210 by agreeing to meet with the Hamiltons in exchange for 

87 ( . . . continued) 

Court accepts as true Judge Biackshear's 
original testimony and holds that his 
recantation is the result of an honest mistake 
on his part. 

However, several years later in January, 1991, Bason filed a 
complaint with the Judicial Council of the Second Circuit Court of 
Appeals against Judge Blackshear, in which Bason stated that he now 
concludes that Judge Blackshear recanted not because of an honest 
mistake but because he made a conscious choice to testify falsely. 

- 196 - 

their assistance in obtaining a position Pasciuto wanted as an 
Assistant U.S. Trustee in Albany; and (iv) Pasciuto concealed 
and/or misrepresented material facts regarding his meeting with the 
Hamiltons from superiors and from the Civil Division attorney 
representing the Department in the Inslaw matter. 

In addition to reviewing the evidence presented during the 
Independent Handling proceeding, OPR conducted its own interviews. 
Ultimately, OPR had before it much the same evidence as was before 
the bankruptcy court. 

OPR concluded its investigation of Pasciuto' s conduct in 
December 1987. It recommended that Pasciuto' s employment be 
terminated primarily because of his admitted decision to harm his 
superior, Stanton, by any means possible, including providing false 
information to the Hamiltons during their meeting. In a subsequent 
report issued on March 31, 1989, OPR concluded that Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason's findings on the independent Handling proceeding were 
"clearly erroneous," and that there was no evidence that DOJ 
employees and officials had tried to put pressure on White to 
convert Ins law's case into a chapter 7 liquidation. OPR further 
found that there was no evidence that DOJ officials and employees 
had lied during the Independent Handling proceeding to cover up the 
conversion effort. OPR pointed out that the final testimony of all 
the witnesses with pertinent knowledge was largely consistent: All 
said there was no plan or pressure to convert. Although it was not 
reviewing the propriety of Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear's conduct, 
OPR credited Blackshear's recantation for a variety of reasons. 

- 197 - 

including the fact that Blackshear had no apparent motive to lie 
about the matter. 

5 . The Public integrity investigation 
In 1988 -- following the bankruptcy adversary proceeding and 
decision- - inslaw' s attorneys complained to the Public Integrity 
Section of DOJ's Criminal Division alleging that Blackshear and 
White perjured themselves in testimony regarding the Inslaw 
bankruptcy proceedings and that White suborned Blackshear' s 
perjury. Additionally, Stuart Schiffer, Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in the Civil Division, referred to the Criminal Division an 
allegation that Anthony Pasciuto, who by the time of Public 
Integrity's investigation had left DOJ, 88 had committed perjury. 
Specifically, it was alleged that Pasciuto had: (i) testified at 

the inslaw trial that he had told the Hamiltons that there was a 
conspiracy afoot in DOJ to drive inslaw into liquidation but 
subsequently admitted in his trial testimony that his statements to 
the Hamiltons were not based on any first-hand knowledge, and 
instead were made in order to cause trouble for his boss Thomas 
Stanton; and (ii) in contesting OPR's recommendation that Pasciuto 
be fired, Pasciuto gave various written and oral statements to DOJ 
and the news media in which he contended that his original 
statements to the Hamiltons were true, which would make his trial 
testimony false. 

88 while Pasciuto, through his counsel, fought OPR's 
recommendation that he be fired, DOJ intended to follow the 
recommendation. Faced with DOJ's position, Pasciuto ultimately 
(and reluctantly) resigned. 

- 198 - 

Public Integrity thoroughly investigated the allegations, 
reviewing and analyzing the testimony and statements made by 
everyone involved, and interviewing all subjects and witnesses who 
would meet with them. 

Public integrity concluded that perjury cases could not be 
proven and that the matter should be declined. With respect to the 
allegations that White and Blackshear committed perjury. Public 
Integrity concluded that evidence that their testimony was false 
was entirely lacking for essentially the same reason that the OPR 
found no disciplinary action against DOJ employees was warranted: 
The final testimony of all witnesses with knowledge was largely 
consistent. As to Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear, Public Integrity 
noted that he had given credible explanations for his change in 

With respect to allegations of perjury against Pasciuto, 
Public Integrity concluded that prosecution should be declined 
because the only sworn testimony by Pasciuto available to Public 
Integrity was Pasciuto' s trial testimony- -and all the evidence 
suggested that Pasciuto' s trial testimony was truthful. Public 
integrity noted that it had been informed by Pasciuto' s counsel 
that Pasciuto had given testimony contrary to his trial testimony 
before the Senate PSI, but at that time transcripts of that 
testimony were unavailable. Furthermore, assuming Pasciuto' s 
testimony to the Subcommittee was that Stanton had tried to convert 
Inslaw, Public Integrity noted several discretionary factors which 
counseled against criminal prosecution. Charging Pasciuto could 

- 199 - 

leave DOJ vulnerable to the charge of conducting a political trial 
based on vindictiveness against a DOJ employee who claimed to be a 
whistleblower. Public Integrity also noted that Pasciuto had 
already lost his job and endangered his career. From reading his 
testimony and hearing accounts of his demeanor at trial. Public 
Integrity viewed it as clear that Pasciuto was emotionally near the 
end of his rope. Public Integrity concluded that there was no good 
reason to add to his difficulties. 

6 . The Senate Subcommittee’s investigation 

The investigation of these allegations has not been limited to 
the bankruptcy court and DOJ. The Senate's PSI also investigated 
the matter. In the course of its investigation, the Subcommittee 
Staff deposed Pasciuto, Harry Jones (the Assistant Trustee from the 
Southern District of New York who was to be detailed to the Inslaw 
case) and Thomas Stanton. The Subcommittee's Staff also 
interviewed Cornelius Blackshear and William White. 

In its report, which issued in September 1989 , the 
Subcommittee Staff found "no proof that an effort to convert 
Inslaw's bankruptcy proceedings was conducted by individuals beyond 
those the Bankruptcy Court had found responsible [i.e., Stanton and 
Brewer]." The Staff Report said that, while there was conflicting 
evidence as to whether Stanton went so far as to urge White to 
convert the Inslaw case into a liquidation, it was clear that 
Stanton urged special treatment for the Inslaw case. The Staff 
said that Stanton's only motive in giving special treatment to the 
inslaw case was because dOJ was interested in the proceeding. 

- 200 - 

According to the Staff, Stanton saw the Inslaw case as a means of 
favorably impressing DOJ and thereby ensuring continued DOJ support 
for his office. The Staff concluded that, while such actions do 
not equate with the type of conspiracy that the Hamiltons had 
alleged, they were, as attempts to influence the handling of the 
case by the U.S. Trustee, improper. 

The Staff also concluded that Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear's 
recantation was implausible. The Staff noted that on four 
occasions prior to his recantation Blackshear had stated that White 
told him about pressure from Stanton to convert the inslaw case 
and it was only after talking to White that Blackshear suggested 
that he had confused Inslaw with the UPI case. 89 

The Staff also discounted Blackshear's explanation that he had 
confused the Inslaw case with his discussions with White about the 
UPI case, during which White told him about pressure from the IRS 
to convert the UPI case. The Staff found no evidence to support 
this explanation. White told the Subcommittee Staff that he had 
never been pressured to convert the UPI case, and representatives 
of the IRS and the Tax Division of DOJ told Inslaw that their 
offices had never attempted to have the UPI case converted. 
Moreover, Blackshear told the Staff that one of the reasons he was 
sure that he had confused Inslaw with UPI was that both he and 
White had spoken at an ABA conference in 1986 about the 

"The four occasions were a telephone conversation with Jane 
Solomon, an acquaintance of Judge Blackshear who called him at the 
request of Inslaw's attorneys, two interviews with Inslaw's 
attorneys, and Blackshear's first deposition in the Independent 
Handling proceeding. 

- 201 - 

independence of the U.S. Trustee program and that both had used the 
UPI case as an example of how trustees could resist pressures upon 
them from other units of DOJ. White told the Staff that he had not 
talked about the UPI case at the conference, however, and the Staff 
obtained official tape recordings of the conference, which showed 
that at no time during his presentation did Blackshear mention the 
UPI case. 

7 . The House Judiciary Committee Investigation 

The House Judiciary Committee also investigated the 
allegations regarding the conversion issue. The Committee has not 
made the materials, interviews, and documents underlying its report 
available to us. It appears to us from the House Committee's 
report, however, that most of the witnesses interviewed by the 
House Committee provided statements essentially consistent with 
their most recent testimony. 

In its report, the Committee credited Pasciuto's testimony to 
it and the original testimony of Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear, and 
implicitly criticized DOJ for holding Pasciuto accountable for his 
discussions with the Hamiltons while "excus[ing]" Bankruptcy Judge 
Blackshear for making statements identical to Pasciuto's. Although 
the Committee did not expressly conclude that DOJ officials and 
employees had schemed to have Inslaw converted to Chapter 7 
bankruptcy, it did state that "[t3he committee encountered numerous 
situations that pointed to a concerted effort by Department 
officials to manipulate the litigation of the Inslaw bankruptcy, as 
alleged by the president of Inslaw." 

- 202 - 

B. Our Analysis 

in investigating these allegations, we reviewed all the 
records from the bankruptcy court proceedings, as well as all 
available records from the prior DOJ and Senate Subcommittee 
investigations outlined above. We also attempted to interview 
personally most of the relevant witnesses. Based on our review of 
this evidence we believe that there is insufficient evidence to 
conclude that DOJ pressured the U.S. Trustee to attempt to convert 
the Inslaw Bankruptcy case or otherwise improperly interfere with 
the case, or that DOJ attempted a cover-up. What follows is a 
discussion of why we believe the evidence does not support a 
finding of wrongdoing. 

1 * Brewer's Conversation with Stanton 
There is no question that Brewer and EOUST Director Stanton 
discussed the Inslaw case. Shortly after Inslaw filed its 

bankruptcy petition in February 1985, Director of EOUST Thomas 
Stanton called william Tyson, the Director of EOUSA, to advise him 
of the filing. Tyson was not in when Stanton called, and Stanton 
left a message. Brewer returned Stanton's call for Tyson. During 
his conversation with Stanton, Brewer asked for copies of Inslaw's 
bankruptcy petition, and Stanton agreed to get them. Stanton then 
called U.S. Trustee White to ask for copies. White provided 
Stanton with the petition, which Stanton sent to Brewer. Stanton 
and Brewer claim that this was the only conversation they ever had 
about the Inslaw bankruptcy, and that this was the sum and 

- 203 - 

substance of that conversation . 90 Moreover, prior to this 
telephone conversation, Stanton and Brewer had not spoken before 
and did not know each other. 

Thus, there is no direct evidence that Brewer (or anyone else 
from DOJ) asked Stanton to try to convert Inslaw's bankruptcy to a 
liquidation. That evidence is entirely circumstantial. 

There are essentially six pieces of circumstantial evidence 
that arguably support this allegation: (1) Pasciuto's statements; 
(2) the Videnieks' notes; (3) the testimony of Gregory McKain; (4) 
the language that White proposed as an addition to Judge Bason's 
confidentiality order; (5) Blackshear's statements to Inslaw's 
bankruptcy attorneys and Judge Solomon prior to his first 
deposition and his testimony at his first deposition; and (6) the 
consideration that was given to transferring Assistant U.S. Trustee 
Harry Jones from the southern District of New York to the District 
of Columbia to work on the Inslaw case. For the reasons discussed 
below, we do not find these pieces of evidence, either individually 
or cumulatively, sufficient to conclude that DOJ was guilty of any 
of the alleged wrongdoing. 

2. Pasciuto's Allegation that Stanton Pressured 
White to Convert the inslaw Case 

On March 17, 19 87 --during the pendency of the Inslaw 
bankruptcy litigation with DOJ- -Anthony Pasciuto, who was then 

90 Stanton testified that, some time later, Stanton ran into 
Brewer. Brewer introduced himself to Stanton and said "you thought 
you were done with INSLAW but you are about to get subpoenaed." 
Stanton maintains that they did not discuss Stanton's testimony or 
anything about INSLAW. 

- 204 - 

Deputy Director of Administration for EOUST, and who worked under 
Stanton, contacted the Hamiltons because he had been told that they 
had connections that could help him obtain a trustee appointment in 
Albany, New York, which he desired. Pasciuto met with the 
Hamiltons. During the course of the meeting, according to Nancy 
Hamilton, Pasciuto told them that Stanton had exerted pressure on 
White to convert the case to chapter 7 and that Stanton had tried 
to assign Harry Jones to White's office in order to work on 
converting the Inslaw case. Pasciuto said he got this information 
from Blackshear and White. 

But Pasciuto himself testified during the Independent Handling 
hearing that no one had ever told him that Stanton had pressured 
White to convert the case to a chapter 7 liquidation, that he did 
not recall telling the Hamiltons about any pressure to convert the 
Inslaw bankruptcy, and that he had no personal knowledge of the 
subject. He went on to say that if he did tell the Hamiltons of 
such pressure to convert, then that was his recollection at the 
time, but he was very upset and would have done anything, including 
exaggerating and making things up, to hurt Stanton (who was his 
boss and with whom he was having problems) . Pasciuto did add, 
however, that at a meeting in New York with Blackshear and U.S. 
Court of Appeals Judge Lawrence Pierce, Blackshear made some 
statement about learning from White that Stanton had pressured 
White to convert Ins law. Pasciuto did not remember the words that 
Blackshear used or what exactly Blackshear said. 

- 205 - 

Pasciuto told the OPR attorneys essentially the same version 
of events that he recounted to the bankruptcy court. Specifically, 
Pasciuto told OPR that all of the information he told the Hamiltons 
regarding pressure to convert Inslaw was second or third hand, that 
he told the Hamiltons to talk to Blackshear and White, and that 
Blackshear had been requested to provide staff help to White. 
Pasciuto again said that no one was being sent to convert the 
Inslaw case, but rather it was a matter of sending someone to help 
White with the case because he needed assistance. 

Based on Pasciuto' s admissions that he made false statements 
to the Hamiltons in order to harm Stanton, OPR recommended that 
Pasciuto be fired. After this recommendation, Pasciuto' s testimony 

In a letter sent by Pasciuto' s attorney to DOJ following OPR's 

recommendation that Pasciuto be dismissed, Pasciuto' s attorney 

argued against termination. The attorney claimed that what 

Pasciuto had told the Hamiltons was true, and that Pasciuto had 

backed away from those statements at trial because Blackshear and 

White would not acknowledge the truth and because Stanton was 

putting pressure on Pasciuto to "play ball" if Pasciuto wanted to 

get his appointment as a trustee in Albany. Specifically, in this 

letter, Pasciuto 's attorney claimed that: 

--Pasciuto had a long-standing personality conflict with 
Stanton, culminating in early 1987 in Pasciuto 's belief 
that Stanton wanted to fire him; 

- -A friend suggested that Pasciuto meet with the 
Hamiltons, and Pasciuto felt that the Hamiltons would 
know that DOJ was treating him unfairly; 

- 206 - 

--At this meeting with the Hamiltons, Pasciuto told them 
that Stanton had pressured Blackshear to detail Jones to 
White's office to convert Inslaw and that Blackshear had 
told Pasciuto of Stanton's plans; 

--After this meeting, but before his testimony before the 
bankruptcy court, pasciuto learned that Blackshear 1 s 
original deposition testimony corroborated Pasciuto’ s 
recollection of their conversation regarding Stanton's 
efforts to convert Inslaw and that Blackshear had 
subsequently recanted that testimony and that White could 
not recall a conversation with Pasciuto regarding inslaw; 

--as a result of learning that there was no corroboration 
of his assertions regarding Stanton's attempts to 
pressure the conversion of the Inslaw bankruptcy, 
Pasciuto became very fearful since he was now alone in 
making this accusation against Stanton; 

--Stanton put job-related pressure on Pasciuto on account 
of Pasciuto' s statements about Stanton's attempt to 
convert the inslaw bankruptcy; 

--Pasciuto felt tremendous pressure over this matter, 
and, when he gave his trial testimony, he was not 
adequately prepared by the DOJ trial attorney and was 
"overly circumspect" about his testimony and tried to 
somehow get out of the difficult position he found 
himself in by testifying primarily about the way Stanton 
had been treating him; and 

--In July 19 87, at a social function in the home of Harry 
Jones, Blackshear came up to Pasciuto and told him that 
"you told the truth ... I got confused ... I thought that 
by changing my story I would hurt less people . . . the 
easiest thing to do was recant ...." 

Before the Senate Subcommittee, Pasciuto testified {in most 
respects consistently with his attorney's letter to DOJ) that White 
had told him that Stanton had pressured White to take some sort of 
action with respect to Inslaw, that Blackshear had stated in 
Pasciuto' s presence that Stanton had pressured Blackshear to send 
Jones to Washington to work on inslaw, and that Blackshear had told 
Pasciuto that he had recanted in order to "hurt less people." 

- 207 - 

According to the House Committee Report, Pasciuto told the 
Committee's investigators that he attended a January 1987 luncheon 
meeting with Blackshear, Judge Lawrence Pierce, Harry Jones and 
Elliott Lombard. The House Committee Report says that during this 
meeting Blackshear described Stanton’s attempt to pressure 
Blackshear into sending Jones to work on the Inslaw bankruptcy. 
Pasciuto apparently testified that it was clear in Pasciuto' s mind 
that Blackshear implied that Stanton wanted inslaw converted to 
chapter 7 status and needed Jones to accomplish this. Pasciuto, 
consistent with his attorney’s letter to DOJ, said that his 
testimony at the Independent Handling hearing was the result of 
pressure from DOJ. 

During our interview of Pasciuto he essentially maintained the 
position that the statements set forth in his attorney's letter are 
the truth. Specifically, Pasciuto told us that at a luncheon 
meeting in judge Pierce’s chambers, Blackshear said something about 
Thomas Stanton wanting Jones to go to White's office to help with 
Inslaw. Blackshear told Pasciuto he refused, and Blackshear 
expressed concern about the pressure from Stanton. Pasciuto told 
us that he was left with the clear impression that Stanton was 
trying to get Blackshear to send Jones to White's office to convert 
Ins law. Pasciuto cannot, however, recall what words Blackshear 
used or what it was that Blackshear in fact said, and Pasciuto does 
not remember whether the word "conversion" was ever used. 
Additionally, Pasciuto said that his testimony at trial differed 
from his current version of events because the DOJ attorney did not 

- 208 - 

adequately prepare him for his testimony, because he knew that 
neither Blackshear nor white would corroborate his testimony, and 
because Stanton put job related pressures on him. 

For several reasons Pasciuto* s statements and testimony are 
extremely unreliable. 

First, Pasciuto has never claimed to have personal knowledge 
or first-hand information about anything related to the alleged 
plot to convert the Inslaw case. His knowledge has only been 
second and third hand. 

Second, Pasciuto in his testimony before the Bankruptcy Court 
acknowledged that neither White nor Blackshear had told him that 
Stanton had pressured White to convert the inslaw bankruptcy. 

Third, Pasciuto 's most recent statements are little more than 
inarticulate, and inadmissible, impressions. For example, Pasciuto 
claims that during a luncheon meeting with Pasciuto and Circuit 
Judge Pierce of the United States Court of Appeals for the second 
Circuit Blackshear said something about Stanton having wanted 
Blackshear to send Jones to White's office to work on the Inslaw 
case. While, according to Pasciuto, Blackshear' s statements left 
him with the distinct impression that Stanton was doing this in 
order to have the Inslaw bankruptcy converted to a chapter 7 
liquidation bankruptcy, Pasciuto cannot remember what Blackshear 
said that left him with that impression. Moreover, the other 
participants in this conversation, Blackshear and Judge Pierce, do 
not remember anything at all being said about Inslaw. Thus, not 

- 209 - 

only is Pasciuto's current version based on sheer hearsay, the 
hearsay itself is entirely without corroboration. 

Finally, Pasciuto is utterly impeachable. During the 
independent Handling proceeding, Pasciuto said, under oath, that if 
he said anything about an effort to convert to the Hamiltons, he 
may have exaggerated or falsified things in order to hurt his boss 
Stanton, with whom he was having difficulties at work and who he 
believed was hindering his appointment to a desired Assistant 
Trustee position in Albany. Pasciuto later claimed that he had 
testified this way at the Independent Handling proceeding because 
he knew Blackshear and White would not corroborate his testimony 
and because of job related pressures. Pasciuto, however, made this 
later claim for the first time in his attorney's response to the 
recommendation by OPR that he be fired for providing false 
information to the Hamiltons in order to hurt Stanton. Thus, the 
argument is strong that Pasciuto's later claim was made in order to 
try to save his job . 91 

91 in its Report, the House Judiciary Committee implicitly 
criticizes DOJ for seeking to fire Pasciuto and thereby holding 
Pasciuto "very accountable for his discussions with the Hamiltons, " 
while not prosecuting Judge Blackshear for perjury, thereby 
excusing him for making statements identical to Pasciuto's. We 
believe this criticism is unjustified. At the time OPR recommended 
that Pasciuto be dismissed, he had told OPR- -consistent with his 
testimony at the Independent Handling proceeding* - that he made 
exaggerated and false statements to the Hamiltons in order to hurt 
Thomas Stanton. It was only after OPR recommended that Pasciuto be 
terminated that Pasciuto changed his story- -yet again- -and claimed 
his statements to the Hamiltons were true. In contrast, Judge 
Blackshear has always maintained that at the time he made the 
statements in his first deposition, he believed them to be true, 
and that it was only after he made the statements that he realized 
he had been mistaken and corrected himself. Furthermore, DOJ did 

(continued. . . ) 

- 210 - 

3 . 

The Videnieks 1 Notes 

In February of 1985, Jack Rugh had a telephone conversation 

with Peter videnieks. Videnieks made a handwritten note of the 

conversation, which read: 

2/20/85 JR called re/'our computer, 1 Brick 
talked to Stanton . . . ’no way’ 11 will be 

'7.* Need home for computer 

Rugh testified that he did not remember this conversation with 
Videnieks, but that the note accurately reflected his view of 
Inslaw's prospects at the time, and his belief that Inslaw would 
end up in liquidation bankruptcy. Rugh was pessimistic about 
Inslaw's financial future even before the company filed for 
bankruptcy- Rugh thought that DOJ accounted for most of Inslaw's 
business and, in February 1985, he knew that Inslaw’s contract with 
DOJ would expire in less than a month. Videnieks also testified 
that, while he did not have a specific recollection of the 
conversation, he believed that Rugh told him that he (Rugh) 
believed that Inslaw would end up in chapter 7. 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason interpreted this note to mean that 
Stanton had assured Brewer that the inslaw bankruptcy would be 
converted to chapter 7. This interpretation of the videnieks' 
notes is not entirely implausible when viewed in the light of the 
testimony of Gregory McKain, which is discussed in the following 
section. It is, however, inconsistent with the testimony of every 

91 ( . . . continued) 

not have the authority to dismiss or otherwise reprimand Judge 
Blackshear. For the reasons previously discussed. Public integrity 
concluded (correctly, we believe) that there was insufficient 
evidence to prosecute Judge Blackshear for perjury. 

* 211 - 

witness who has personal knowledge of the conversations reflected 
in the notes. The interpretation given the notes by videnieks and 
Rugh is not only equally reasonable, but is supported by virtually 
all the evidence. There is a space in the notes between the words 
"Brick talked to Stanton" and the words "no way 11 will be 7." It 
is thus reasonable to infer that Rugh told Videnieks that Brewer 
talked to Stanton (which Brewer had- -at least about getting the 
inslaw pleadings) , and that, apart from that, Rugh told videnieks 
that he thought Inslaw would end up in chapter 7. This is what 
Rugh and videnieks say they think happened. Because this 
interpretation is both reasonable and consistent with virtually all 
other evidence, we are unable to conclude that this note means that 
Stanton told Brewer that he would see to it that Inslaw would end 
up in chapter 7 . 

4 . McKain 1 s Testimony 

On about February 21, 1985, shortly after Inslaw had filed for 
protection under the Bankruptcy Code, Rugh talked with Gregory 
McKain, an Inslaw employee, to ask him whether he would be 
interested in working for DOJ. Rugh had been very impressed for 
some time with McKain' s work and had discussed with McKain on 
several occasions the possibility of McKain working for DOJ. 
McKain testified that during their conversation, Rugh told him that 
DOJ had talked to the "Trustees" who said that inslaw would not 
survive in chapter 11 bankruptcy and would probably be in chapter 
7 within 30 to 60 days. Rugh testified that he might have told 
McKain that there had been a conversation with the U.S. Trustee's 

- 212 - 

office because he understood from Brewer that there had been such 
a conversation. Rugh also said, however, that as far as he knew, 
the Trustee' a Office had not said that inslaw would not make it in 
chapter 11. He was not aware of what view, if any, the Trustee's 
Office had on’ Inslaw's prospects. Rugh testified that he told 
McKain that Inslaw would not be able to survive in chapter 11 
because that was his own view. 

Following his conversation with Rugh, McKain told his boss, 
William Hamilton, of his (McKain's) version of the conversation 
with Rugh. Hamilton assured McKain that the company would continue 
in business. Hamilton was upset by the conversation between Rugh 
and McKain and called one of his bankruptcy lawyers, Stanley Salus, 
to ask him to look into the matter. Salus and Inslaw's other 
bankruptcy attorneys called U.S. Trustee White and told him 
McKain's version of Rugh's call. White promised to investigate and 
assured inslaw’ s counsel that his office was and would remain 
independent of DOJ in the matter. Later that day. White called 
Salus and told him that he had been assured that his staff had 
expressed no opinions to DOJ regarding the likelihood of a 
successful reorganization. White also assured Salus that nothing 
other than public records would be given to DOJ. 

Although McKain's testimony at the Independent Handling 
proceeding gives some circumstantial support for the conversion 
theory, Rugh has testified to a different version of this 
conversation. Rugh claimed that he himself believed that inslaw 
would end up in liquidation and he merely expressed that personal 

- 213 - 

opinion to McKain. Arguably there is no more reason to think that 
Rugh is lying about this than there is to think that McKain is. If 
Rugh can be said to have lied to protect his employer, DOJ, it is 
equally plausible that McKain lied to help his employer. Inslaw. 
It is equally possible, of course, that Mr. McKain simply 
misunderstood what Mr. Rugh had said. In the end, McKain' s 
testimony provides some support to the conversion theory, but not 
enough to satisfy us that the theory is true. 

5 . White's Addition to Confidentiality Order 
On July 11, 1985, the Bankruptcy Court ordered that certain 
information filed by Inslaw be kept confidential. U.S. Trustee 
white reviewed that order before it was signed and, at his 
suggestion, the following sentence was added to the last paragraph 
of the order: 

No other employee or agent of the Justice 
Department [i.e., other than in the office of 
the United States Trustee] shall have any 
access whatsoever, directly or indirectly, to 
the confidential materials covered by this 

Bankruptcy Judge Bason found during the Independent Handling 
hearing that white requested this language to protect himself from 
importuning by Stanton. 

We do not believe the evidence supports Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason's finding. William white has explained that he asked for 
this language to preclude criticism such as Inslaw’s counsel, Mr. 
Salus, had made to him the preceding February following the Rugh- 
McKain conversation, white explained that he sought to preclude 
such criticism by ensuring that only personnel in his office would 

- 214 * 

be involved in the case. No evidence contradicts White's 

explanation for including this language and there is no good reason 

for doubting White's word. The evidence clearly indicates that 
White did not think highly of Thomas Stanton. So there is no 
reason to doubt that had there been an improper attempt to 
influence White, White would have so testified, particularly when 
he was no longer a U.S Trustee and had gone into private practice. 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason speculated that White's very independence 
from EOUST somehow cast doubt upon white's testimony. According to 
Bason, White’s "memory" was faulty because he had returned to 
private practice and he might think he would have difficulties 
practicing bankruptcy law if he antagonized the Executive Office of 
U.S. Trustees. But there is no evidence that suggests that White's 
practice was dependent upon the goodwill of EOUST, or that White 
would lie under oath even if his livelihood were affected by EOUST. 

6 . Cornelius Blackshear 

On March 25, 1987, inslaw attorneys deposed Blackshear, a 

former U.S. Trustee in New York who by that time had become a 
United States Bankruptcy Court Judge for the Southern District of 
New York. Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear initially testified that 
White had told him that Stanton had tried to pressure White to 
convert the case and to have Jones assigned to white to effect the 
conversion. Blackshear also testified that Stanton had never 
contacted him about detailing Jones to work on the Inslaw case, but 
he thought Stanton might have approached Jones on the subject 
directly. White, on the other hand, had been deposed shortly 

- 215 - 

before Blackshear and had testified differently. In his 
deposition, White testified that while Stanton had inquired of him 
about the Inslaw case, Stanton had not tried to exert any pressure 
on White to convert Inslaw. White also testified that Blackshear 
had told him that Blackshear' s assistant Harry Jones was going to 
be detailed to Washington to work on Inslaw, but Blackshear did not 
say the detail was for the purpose of converting Inslaw. 

When White learned that Blackshear had testified differently 
from White in his deposition. White contacted Blackshear and 
eventually Blackshear and White spoke by telephone. White told 
Blackshear that Blackshear was mistaken and that White had not told 
Blackshear those things about the Inslaw bankruptcy. Blackshear 
says that after his conversation- with White he realized that he had 
been mistaken and had confused Inslaw with another case about which 
White had spoken to him. Blackshear, with the assistance of his 
attorney (an Assistant United States Attorney in the Civil Division 
of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New 
York) , prepared and signed an affidavit recanting his deposition 
testimony. In the affidavit, Blackshear stated that at the time he 
gave the deposition he believed all the things he said to be true, 
but that he subsequently realized, after his conversation with 
White that: (i) White had not told him that Stanton had tried to 
pressure White to convert Inslaw; and (ii) Blackshear had confused 
Inslaw with the UPI case, about which White had told Blackshear 
that the IRS had pressured White to join in a motion to convert. 
Blackshear also gave a second deposition in which he basically 

- 216 - 

repeated his new recollections that White had not told him that 
Stanton had tried to pressure White to convert Inslaw and that he 
had confused the Inslaw case with UPI. 

During the OPR investigation Blackshear essentially repeated 
the statements he had made in his recanting affidavit and second 
deposition, stating that White had not told him that Stanton had 
put pressure on him to convert Inslaw, and that Blackshear had 
confused Inslaw with UPI . Blackshear, however, disagreed with 
White regarding a conversation they had about the possible 
assignment of his assistant Harry Jones to Washington. Blackshear 
believed that White had told him that Stanton planned to bring 
Jones to Washington. White, on the other hand, maintained that 
Blackshear told this to White. Blackshear also denied that he had 
discussions with Pasciuto at a social gathering (or anywhere) in 
which he admitted that he was sorry for his conduct in the Inslaw 
matter and that he had given false testimony in his recantation to 
avoid hurting people. 

The statements attributed to Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear in 
the House Committee Report appear to differ somewhat from his prior 
testimony to OPR and the Senate subcommittee. According to the 
report, Blackshear stated, among other things, that the information 
he provided in his prior depositions was not based on personal 
knowledge but on hearsay information provided by other sources. 
Blackshear apparently stated that he now remembered that much of 
the information came in fact from Anthony Pasciuto. Blackshear 
stated that he first became aware of the Inslaw case when Pasciuto 

- 217 - 

told him that Stanton was attempting to have Jones assigned to the 
case. Blackshear stated that he now remembered that he did not 
discuss the Inslaw conversion issue with White, but rather with 

We also interviewed Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear. At the start 
of the interview. Judge Blackshear gave us a document dated January 
16, 1991, and entitled "Response of the Hon. Cornelius Blackshear 
Re inslaw." Judge Blackshear told us that he had also provided a 
copy of this document to James Lewin, an investigator for the House 
Judiciary Committee, and that, upon much reflection during the past 
years about this whole incident, he believes' that the document 
reflects his best recollection of what happened. 

Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear* s statement recounts the 

(1) Judge Blackshear did not communicate with White prior to 
his first deposition. After talking with White after his first 
deposition (and white telling him that white had never told 
Blackshear that Stanton had pressured White to convert Inslaw) , 
Blackshear believed that White had not given him the information 
about the conversion for two reasons: (i) upon reflection, 
Blackshear honestly could not pinpoint having had a conversation 
with White about a motion to convert inslaw; and (ii) White and 
Stanton were not the best of friends and thus there would be no 
reason for White to try to protect Stanton. 

(2) During early 1985, white called Blackshear frequently 
about Stanton's interference with White's office and requested 

- 218 - 

Blackshear's input regarding administration of bankruptcy cases in 
general. During that time, Blackshear was also in constant 
communication with Anthony Pasciuto. Pasciuto and Blackshear had 
developed a close relationship over the years and Pasciuto kept 
Blackshear abreast of developments in the Executive Office. 

(3) After Blackshear became United States Trustee for the 
Southern District of New York, Stanton and Blackshear had a parting 
of the ways because Blackshear did not support some of Stanton's 
activities in the Executive Office. One of the factors that went 
into Blackshear's decision to apply for the judgeship was the 
deterioration of his relationship with Stanton. Pasciuto had 
disclosed to Blackshear that Stanton was attempting to retaliate 
because Stanton had branded Blackshear an "ingrate." Pasciuto also 
informed Blackshear of what Stanton was doing in other matters. 

(4) Blackshear now recalls -- after much thinking about it -- 
that the information he testified to in his first deposition about 
an effort by Stanton to pressure White into converting Inslaw -- 
came from Anthony Pasciuto, who was frequently talking to 
Blackshear about things going on in the Executive Office. 
Blackshear believes that Pasciuto possibly overheard Stanton 
suggest that he would pressure White to make a motion of 
conversion, but that Stanton's superiors probably nixed the idea. 
This would explain, says Blackshear, why no motion to convert was 
ever in fact made. 

(5) Blackshear continues to maintain that White told him that 
IRS put pressure on White to move to convert the UPI case. 

-219 - 

With respect to the UPI issue. Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear 

gave us a copy of his testimony before the United States House of 

Representatives Subcommittee on Monopolies and Commercial Law (a 

subcommittee of the House Committee on the Judiciary) on March 20, 

1986. Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear told us that it was during this 

speech - - rather than a speech to the ABA - - that he mentioned the 

UPI conversion matter. According to the transcript of that 

testimony, Blackshear testified about the U.S. Trustee program and 

its independence and conflict of interest issues, and stated: 

I know of one other situation where the u.S. 

Trustee had a problem in the sense that 
another agency was involved in it, but that 
agency being the IRS, was making a motion to 
convert the case, and the U.S. Trustee took a 
different position; and to the benefit of the 
IRS, the U.S. Trustee won because the IRS on a 
conversion would have received nothing. As a 
result of the U.S. Trustee’s position, the IRS 
did receive 100 cent on the dollar of its 

Although reasonable people could differ on the subject, we do 
not believe there is sufficient evidence to conclude that 
Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear' s recantation of his testimony is 
false. Our conclusion is based on all of . the evidence, but our 
reasoning is essentially as follows: 

(i) Although Blackshear had originally testified in his first 
deposition that White had told him of Stanton's pressure to convert 
Inslaw, Blackshear’ s recollection was subsequently refreshed and he 
corrected his testimony; 

- 220 - 

(ii) Blackshear's refreshed recollection was consistent with 
that of virtually all the other witnesses, who said that Stanton 
had not exerted pressure to have Inslaw converted ; 92 

(iii) There did not appear to be any reason or motive for 
Blackshear to lie about this; 

(iv) If Blackshear were going to lie, he would make sure his 
story was consistent with White's. But although Blackshear and 
White both admitted that they had spoken after Blackshear's first 
deposition, they nevertheless continued to disagree about who told 
whom about Harry Jones being sent to White's office and several 
other matters. 

Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear's pre- deposition statements and 
first deposition do provide some. support for Inslaw's allegations. 
But those statements were not based upon Blackshear's direct 
personal knowledge of the alleged conversion plot, and we have 
found no credible evidence that clearly supports the version of 
events set forth in those earlier statements by Bankruptcy Judge 

We have also considered the fact, previously noted, that 
Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear has now suggested a third version of 
the events. The Judge now believes, after thinking about this for 
years, that he did hear of a conversion effort by Stanton, but that 
this information came from Anthony Pasciuto. It is evident to us 
that as an essentially disinterested third-party, Bankruptcy Judge 

92 Pasciuto is the only exception. His contrary version has 
been discussed previously. 

- 221 - 

Blackshear had and continues to have difficulty recalling the 
sources of various conversations he has had as they relate to this 
matter. We believe poor memory explains this confusion, not 
intentional misstatements of the facts. We do not believe, as 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason apparently did, that Blackshear 1 s poor 
memory means that we must accept his original testimony (in his 
first deposition) rather than his refreshed testimony (after 
talking to White) . His recantation, in our opinion, is the most 
consistent with the facts described by other witnesses. 

We do not mean to minimize the confusion that is evident from 
Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear 1 s various statements. Blackshear 's 
pre-deposition statements and his original deposition testimony 
tended to support the allegation (albeit through hearsay) that 
Stanton pressured White to convert Inslaw. In his subsequent 
testimony, however, Blackshear said he had heard nothing of an 
effort to convert the Inslaw bankruptcy. Most recently, Blackshear 
has said that in fact he did hear about an effort to convert the 
Inslaw case, but that this information came from Pasciuto. This 
series of contradictory statements can only be described as 
troubling. At best, it reveals a rather malleable witness who has 
difficulty recalling certain conversations and events. At worst, 
it shows . a lack of truthfulness on at least one occasion. The 
problem for us is that if Blackshear was lying, there is 
insufficient evidence to determine on which occasion he lied. It 
is possible that, as Inslaw suggests, Blackshear lied when he 
denied that he had heard from White that Stanton had pressured 

- 222 - 

White to convert the Inslaw case. That possibility seems unlikely 

to us, however, because the weight of the other evidence suggests 

that Stanton did not pressure White to convert the Inslaw case. 
Although no one has suggested it up to this point, it is also at 
least theoretically possible that Blackshear lied in his initial 
statements when he claimed to have heard of misconduct by Stanton. 
We know that Blackshear was close to Pasciuto {who was no fan of 
Stanton's) and that Blackshear left his U.S. Trustee position in 
part because of Stanton. Again, however, there is a lack of 
credible evidence to show that this possibility is something more 
than speculation. 

Ultimately, we conclude that there simply is not sufficient 
evidence to prove {by any standard) that Blackshear lied when he 
recanted his deposition testimony. 

We do not see any reason why Blackshear- -a sitting bankruptcy 
judge- -would recant his original sworn testimony and then lie 
repeatedly thereafter. Bason suggested that Bankruptcy Judge 
Blackshear recanted because he wanted to be agreeable to White, or 
because Blackshear feared that as a result of his public remarks in 
support of the trustee program he would be exposed to the charge of 
"hypocrisy or worse" if it were learned that he knew of an instance 
in which DOJ attempted to influence a U.S. Trustee. We find it 
hard to believe, however, that Bankruptcy Judge Blackshear would 
for either of these alleged reasons commit perjury and jeopardize 
his career on the bench. 

- 223 - 

7 . Stanton's Consideration of Transferring Harry Jones 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason found additional support for his 
findings that DOJ had improperly attempted to convert the Inslaw 
case from the consideration given by Thomas Stanton, Director of 
EOUST , to transferring Harry Jones to work on the Inslaw case. 
Harry Jones was an assistant U.S. Trustee in the Southern District 
of New York. It is clear that at some point Stanton considered 
transferring Jones to the District of Columbia to assist in the 
Inslaw matter. Stanton testified that shortly after Inslaw filed 
its bankruptcy petition, Stanton called Blackshear, then the United 
States Trustee for the Southern District of New York, and asked 
Blackshear to detail Harry Jones, then an assistant to Blackshear, 
to work on the Inslaw case. Stanton said that he wanted Jones to 
set up the creditors' committee and to conduct the first meeting of 
creditors. Stanton thought highly of Jones and he wanted Jones to 
work on the initial stages of the Inslaw bankruptcy because he 
thought the matter was likely to receive publicity and he wanted to 
make sure that it got off to a good start. Stanton denied that 
Jones was to be assigned to effect a conversion of the case. He 
stated that he had not discussed with anyone at DOJ (including 

Brewer) his request for Jones to work on Inslaw. According to 

Stanton, Blackshear said that his office was too busy to spare 

Jones. Blackshear and White, although they disagree on the 

particulars of the conversation, agree that they discussed and were 
aware of a request to transfer Jones to work on the case. Thus 
although there is considerable conflict and contradiction among the 

- 224 - 

witnesses regarding the possibility of assigning Jones to the 

Inslaw case, there is no question that Stanton at least briefly 

entertained the idea. 

It is equally clear that Jones was not actually sent to work 
on the inslaw case. Harry Jones has testified that, while Stanton 
had on occasion detailed him to other offices, he was never 
requested by anyone, including Stanton, to go to Washington to work 
on the Inslaw case. There is no evidence to the contrary. 

Stanton has explained that he appreciated the high-profile 
nature of the inslaw case within DOJ and wanted to assign Jones to 
it to make sure that the case got off to a good start. Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason chose to entirely discredit Stanton’s testimony, 
including his reasons for his wanting to assign Jones to the case. 
Bason viewed Stanton's conduct regarding Jones as additional 
evidence of a plan to effect the conversion of the Inslaw case to 
a chapter 7. We believe that Judge Bason's inference is 
unreasonable, and that the fact that Stanton considered 
transferring Jones provides no support for the conversion theory. 

The scheme attributed to Stanton by the Court would have been 
self-defeating. All a trustee ever could do is request conversion. 
Ultimately, of course, it would be up to the Bankruptcy Court- -in 
this case, Bankruptcy Judge Bason- -to rule on the motion and 
actually effect the conversion. All involved agree that when 
Stanton was allegedly engaged in these machinations, it was 
obvious, particularly at the early stage of the proceedings, that 
there was no basis for a motion to convert. It is thus difficult 

- 225 - 

to imagine how or why the assignment of a new assistant trustee 
would further the supposed object of the alleged scheme to 
liquidate Inslaw. Any decision would have to be made by the 
Bankruptcy Court, even assuming that by assigning Jones to 
Washington, Stanton could somehow force White to permit such a 
motion to be filed. 

There is, we believe, an even more compelling reason why the 
inference adopted by Bankruptcy Judge Bason does not withstand 
scrutiny. Stanton did not broach the subject of working on the 
Inslaw case with Jones. He obviously did not come to any 
understanding with Jones that Jones would file a motion to convert. 
Thus, for Stanton's alleged scheme to make sense, he had to have 
assumed that Jones, if assigned to the case, would make an 
obviously improper motion. Harry Jones has been repeatedly 
described by witnesses as a person of great integrity and an expert 
in bankruptcy matters. It is inconceivable that Stanton would 
choose such a person to execute his alleged scheme. Jones would 
have immediately recognized that the motion was baseless and 
refused to make it. 

C. Conclusion 

Based on our investigation, we conclude that there is not 
sufficient evidence to establish that DOJ and Stanton endeavored to 
have the Inslaw case converted. There are a number of reasons for 
our conclusion. 

- 226 * 

1 . The Alleged Scheme To Convert 

First, the allegations have been denied repeatedly- by those 
who would have first-hand knowledge. Stanton, White, Brewer, Rugh 
and Videnieks have consistently denied these allegations, and we 
find no persuasive reason why all of these witnesses would 
collectively lie. 

The evidence fully supports the denial of William White that 
any pressure was put on his office to convert the Inslaw case. The 
evidence indicates that William White did not think particularly 
well of Thomas Stanton or how Stanton performed his job. Thus, it 
is far from clear that White would lie to protect Stanton. 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason concluded that because White was now in 
private practice. White would be willing to tailor his testimony to 
avoid jeopardizing his relationship with the Trustee's Office. 
Nothing we have discovered supports this speculation. It is not at 
all likely. that White would, or in fact did, lie for such a reason. 
Indeed, we believe that the opposite inference is more reasonable. 
Because White was no longer in government, he was less susceptible 
to pressure to tailor his testimony to suit DOJ's position. 

In addition, we find little reason to suspect that Thomas 
Stanton would want to obtain the conversion of the Inslaw case in 
order to appease Brewer. As discussed elsewhere in this report, we 
have found no evidence of a DOJ conspiracy to steal PROMIS from 
Inslaw or to drive inslaw out of business. Moreover, there is 
absolutely no evidence that senior DOJ officials ever considered a 
conversion of Inslaw’s bankruptcy or directed Brewer to accomplish 

- 227 - 

such a conversion through Stanton. If upper-level DOJ officials 
did not back or seek such a conversion effort {and we have found no 
evidence that they did) , then there is no reason why Stanton would 
agree to the alleged request by Brewer (whom Stanton did not know) 
to have Inslaw converted, in other words, absent any evidence that 
DOJ backed the conversion, there is no evidence to support 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason's conclusion that Stanton agreed to seek the 
conversion in order to curry favor with DOJ. 

As we have noted elsewhere, any scheme to have Inslaw 
converted to a chapter 7 liquidation bankruptcy would have been 
doomed from the start. All the U.S. Trustee' s ‘Of fice could do to 
seek conversion was to move the Bankruptcy Court- -that is. 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason -- to convert the case. All involved 
apparently agree, however, that it was obvious that the facts of 
the inslaw case would not have supported a motion to convert, and 
thus such a motion never would have been granted by Judge Bason or 
any other bankruptcy judge. It is thus difficult to imagine why 
DOJ and Stanton would scheme to convert Inslaw when such a scheme 
was destined to fail. 

Finally, whatever Stanton's motives may have been in wanting 
Harry Jones to work on the case, it is not reasonable to conclude 
that his object was the conversion of the Inslaw case. An attorney 
of unquestioned integrity and expertise in bankruptcy matters would 
hardly be the choice to execute a scheme that, if it could possibly 
succeed, would at the very least require that the attorney file a 
frivolous motion with the Bankruptcy Court. 

- 228 - 

we acknowledge that this is a troublesome issue. It is 
troublesome because of the recantations of both Pasciuto and 
Blackshear. But the recantations of those witnesses do not 
convince us that there is any reason to credit their original 
testimony. To the contrary, their recantations convince us that we 
cannot rely upon any of their testimony to resolve this issue. 

In short, we believe that the weight of the evidence does not 
support the conclusion that there was a scheme by DOJ to convert 
the Inslaw bankruptcy case to a chapter 7 liquidation. 

2 . The Alleged Cover-up 

The foregoing largely disposes of the allegations of a cover- 
up. we have concluded that there is insufficient evidence of a 
scheme to convert. We also have found insufficient evidence of a 
cover-up of the apparently nonexistent scheme. Several related 
matters, however, merit brief mention. 

a. Blackshear 1 s Recantation 

As noted above, the circumstances of Bankruptcy Judge 


Blackshear' s recantation defy simple analysis. While reasonable 
people can {and do) disagree about Blackshear 's motivations, we are 
convinced that the response of DOJ employees to Blackshear' s 
recantations was entirely proper. 

James Garrity, then an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Civil 
Division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of 
New York, and now a U.S. Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District 
of New York, represented Blackshear during the bankruptcy 
proceedings in the independent Handling matter. Garrity 

- 229 - 

accompanied Blackshear to his first deposition. The next day, 

Garrity received a call from DOJ attorney Dean Cooper, the trial 


attorney defending the Independent Handling claims. Cooper told 
Garrity that he believed Blackshear' s testimony was wrong and that 
DOJ was concerned that something should be done to correct the 
error. In his conversation with Garrity, however, Cooper did not 
suggest what "correct" testimony would be. Garrity then spoke to 
Blackshear, who also told Garrity that his testimony was wrong and 
that he wished to correct it. Blackshear told Garrity that after 
speaking with White he had become convinced that he had made a 
mistake about the "conversion conversation." Garrity and 
Blackshear then prepared the recantation affidavit, a copy of which 
Garrity sent to Cooper. 

These facts indicate conduct that was consistent with the good 
faith effort expected of all attorneys to ensure that the record in 
any lawsuit contains the truth. Likewise, because we have already 
concluded that there is not sufficient evidence to conclude that 
White's testimony or Blackshear' s recantation were untruthful, we 
necessarily conclude that there is not sufficient evidence to find 
that White suborned perjury by encouraging Blackshear to correct 
his deposition testimony. 

b. pasciuto's Termination 

After the Independent Handling hearing, OPR conducted an 
investigation of Pasciuto's conduct in connection with that matter. 
During the investigation Pasciuto acknowledged that he exercised 
very poor judgment in meeting with the Hamiltons in March 1987. 

- 230 - 

OPR found several of the charges against Pasciuto to be 

unsupported. But after a careful review of the record in the 

Independent Handling proceedings, and after interviewing those 

involved in the hearing, OPR recommended that Pasciuto be 

terminated. The OPR’s report states in part: 

Our recommendation is based principally on his 
decision to harm his superior, Mr. Stanton, in 
any way he could, even to the extent of 
providing what he acknowledged to be false 
statements to the Hamiltons on March 17, 1987. 

The OPR recommendation, therefore, was based upon Pasciuto 1 s 

demonstrated disloyalty to his superior by providing false 

information to the Hamiltons. Such conduct hardly qualifies 

Pasciuto as a whistleblower. 

After the OPR's report, of course, Pasciuto changed his story 
once again, this time claiming that he told the Hamiltons the 
truth. But this recantation essentially admitted that he 
deliberately gave false testimony in the Independent Handling 
proceeding. Even if Pasciuto' s recantation were true (and we do 
not find sufficient evidence that it is) we think that the 
admissions in Pasciuto' s new account of his conduct established his 
unfitness for continued service in the position he then held. 

Although Pasciuto might take some solace in characterizing 
himself as a whistleblower, we do not believe the label is apt. 
The conduct for which Pasciuto lost his job did not reveal the 
truth, but instead concealed and obscured it. we find that the 
DOJ's conduct in seeking and obtaining the termination of 
Pasciuto 's employment was entirely appropriate. 

- 231 - 


Criticism of DOJ has not been limited to its administration of 
the PROMIS implementation contract and its litigation with Inslaw. 
DOJ has also been criticized for its response to the Congressional 
investigations of the Inslaw matter. Both the Permanent 
Subcommittee on Investigations of the Senate Committee on 
Governmental Affairs and the House Judiciary Committee issued 
reports that were sharply critical of DOJ's responses to their 
requests for information. The history of DOJ's responses to each 
committee is detailed in their respective reports. We confirmed 
some of the details of DOJ's responses, but except as noted below, 
we accepted as accurate the factual statements contained in the 
’ reports . 

A. Allegation that DOJ's Objections Created Delays 

Both committee reports criticize DOJ for creating delays by 
objecting to various procedures and requests. The report of the 
Senate Subcommittee charges, for example, that DOJ initially 
objected to any Congressional investigation while the Inslaw 
adversary proceeding was still in litigation. When the 
Subcommittee rejected that request for delay, DOJ insisted that a 
member of its inslaw litigation team attend any depositions of DOJ 
employees. That condition resulted in a six to eight week delay, 
apparently because all of DOJ's attorneys on the inslaw litigation 
team were occupied with the preparation of DOJ's appellate brief in 
the inslaw case when the Subcommittee wished to depose some DOJ 

- 232 - 

employees. Ultimately, those attorneys became available, and the 
depositions proceeded. 

Additional delay occurred when the Attorney General decided 
that no depositions of DOJ employees would be taken unless daily 
copies of transcripts were provided to DOJ. Ultimately, that 
decision was reversed and the depositions proceeded. 

The House Judiciary Committee experienced similar delays. 
Interviews of DOJ employees by the Committee were delayed by the 
Attorney General's initial insistence that a DOJ attorney be 
present at any such interview. That requirement was dropped after 
the Committee protested. Then, access to DOJ files was delayed, 
reportedly for several months, while the Committee and DOJ 
negotiated about the confidentiality of certain documents. After 
that issue was resolved, DOJ refused the Committee access to 
documents that DOJ considered to be protected by the work-product 
doctrine and the attorney -client privilege. After a Committee 
hearing on that issue, the Attorney General granted full access to 
all its Inslaw- related documents. 

The Senate PSI Staff characterized DOJ's "lack .of cooperation" 
as "hamper [ing] " a full, free and timely investigation. The House 
Committee reported that DOJ attempted to "thwart" the Committee's 
inquiry. Despite these characterizations, there is no allegation 
{or basis for suggesting, so far as we are aware) that the delays 
caused by DOJ's objections constituted a criminal obstruction or 
attempt to obstruct Congress. 

- 233 - 

Although it could be argued that some of DOJ's objections were 
expansive, they were by no means frivolous. Both Congressional 
inquiries touched on matters that were the subject of pending 
litigation. Many of the documents requested were for this reason 
particularly sensitive, and DOJ could be justly criticized if it 
failed to take precautions against further disclosure. 

With perfect hindsight, it would be easy to conclude that DOJ 
acted improvidently in asserting objections that it later withdrew. 
Those objections caused delays and increased the committees' 
frustration with and skepticism about DOJ's candor. The delays and 
frustration apparently fueled the suspicions of at least the House 
Committee investigators, and generated hostility between DOJ and 
those investigators. 

DOJ arguably derived some benefit from its objections and the 
consequent delays. At least some of the work and consequent 
criticism of the committees was delayed until after the Court of 
Appeals reversed the decision of the bankruptcy court. Also, DOJ 
negotiated some concessions from the committees as a result of its 
ob j ections . 

Whether any of these benefits outweigh the "cost” of DOJ's 
perceived lack of cooperation with the committees is, for the most 
part, a political question, not a legal one. It is not our role to 
provide political advice concerning these subjects, and we defer on 
such issues to those with appropriate expertise. 

We note, however, the irony of the House Committee's criticism 
of DOJ for delaying access to documents. We have tried for months 

- 234 - 

to obtain access to the documents and information the House 
Committee compiled during its investigation of this matter. To 
date, we have received little outside of the published report and 
the public hearings. Although the House Committee has urged that 
further investigation be conducted into the "inslaw Affair, " it has 
not provided us or DOJ with the documents and information that it 
contends warrant further investigation. We do not conclude, 
however, that the Committee is attempting or has attempted to 
thwart our investigation. To the contrary, we recognize that the 
Committee has legitimate privacy and institutional concerns 
regarding its documents and the confidentiality of its sources. We 
respect the Committee's need to delay our access to its documents 
so that it has time to make a reasoned decision on our requests. 
Delay is an unfortunate, but perhaps inevitable, consequence of 
having coordinate branches of government attempt to investigate the 
same subjects. We note that we encountered similar delays in 
obtaining materials from the Senate PSI investigation. Although 
the Senate PSI's members, staff and counsel were extremely 
courteous and helpful, it took several months before the 
Subcommittee was able to authorize disclosure of their 
investigation materials. We, of course, thank the Senate and its 
staff for their aid and cooperation with our investigation. 

B. Allegation that DOJ violated Conflict of Interest 

Although the Senate Subcommi ttee ' s staff was clearly concerned 
about the delays that DOJ's apparent uncooperativeness created, it 
leveled its most serious criticism at DOJ for assigning a DOJ 

- 235 - 

attorney to represent both DOJ and Department employees in an 
investigation that focused on DOJ itself. The Subcommittee 
reported that it believed that this arrangement violated principles 
of conflict of interest. 

The Subcommittee apparently concluded that Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason's suggestions that DOJ committed crimes, whether correct or 
not, created such an inherent conflict of interest between DOJ and 
its employees that DOJ could not represent any employees in the 
Congressional investigation. We disagree. 

The Bankruptcy Court's findings created a potential conflict 
of interest only if those findings were accepted as true, or if the 
employee to be represented believed them to be true. If those 
findings were incorrect, and the employee had no information or 
belief to the contrary, then there was no inherent conflict. DOJ 
attorneys could ethically represent both the interests of DOJ and 
the interests of the employees, whose actions the attorneys 
believed to have been consistent with the legitimate interests of 

The problem DOJ faced arose from the fact that the Bankruptcy 
Court's findings created an appearance of wrongdoing by DOJ. That 
appearance raised the further appearance of potential conflict 
between DOJ and its employees, especially those employees that the 
Bankruptcy Court believed to be involved in wrongdoing. An 
appearance piled upon an appearance, however, does not make a 
conflict. Although it might have been prudent for DOJ to provide 
outside counsel to represent its employees (and thereby avoid even 

- 236 - 

the appearance of a conflict of interest) , it was not in our view 
ethically or legally required to do so. 

Rather, the obligation of DOJ and its lawyers was to determine 
whether any of the employees who were to be questioned by the 
Subcommittee had any interest {or information) that differed from 
the interests of DOJ, such that the judgment of a DOJ attorney 
representing both of them might be adversely affected. According 
to the statements made by the Assistant Attorney General for the 
Civil Division at a Senate hearing, DOJ evaluated this question and 
concluded that there was no conflict. This appears to us to have 
been an appropriate approach to the problem. In view of our 
conclusions regarding the allegations against DOJ and the 
Bankruptcy court's findings, we concur with the conclusion that 
there was no conflict. 

c. Question of Whether DOJ Destroyed Documents. 

The most serious suggestion of wrongdoing by either 
Congressional committee is not presented in the form of an explicit 
accusation. It is simply stated as a question. Specifically, 
during its investigation, the House Committee learned from DOJ that 
certain requested documents -- compi led by Sandra Spooner, Deputy 
Director of the Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division- -were 
missing. The Committee reported this fact and also reported that 
"[biased on the numbering system used by DOJ, ... it appear [ed] 
that numerous additional documents [were] missing ." 93 The 

93 We asked the Committee to clarify this conclusion because we 
have not been able to determine from the document -numbering system 

{continued. . . ) 

- 237 - 

Committee noted that, in light of the allegations of criminal 
conspiracy against high level DOJ officials, some people will 
question whether the missing documents may have been destroyed. 
The Committee concluded by noting that the question of unauthorized 
destruction of documents also arose in the context of a former DOJ 
employee who alleged that Department employees illegally destroyed 
documents relating to the Inslaw case by shredding them . 94 Thus, 
without explicitly accusing anyone of illegally destroying 
documents, the Committee raised the possibility of just such 
illegal conduct. 

We investigated this suggestion and found no evidence that 
anyone intentionally destroyed any documents that were requested by 
Congress. The circumstances surrounding the missing file and its 
reconstruction persuade us that it was lost and not destroyed. 

Significantly, it was Sandra Spooner herself who discovered 
and reported that a file was missing. The missing file was a 
binder of privileged documents that she had compiled from her trial 
materials. All DOJ attorneys who were involved in the inslaw 
litigation compiled such files when the House Committee first 
requested access to DOJ litigation documents. 

Initially, DOJ agreed to provide access only to its non- 
privileged documents. As a result, DOJ attorneys reviewed their 

93 ( . . . continued) 

that any documents were missing. The Committee has not yet 
responded to our request. 

94 As noted elsewhere in our report, we found no evidence to 
support the allegation that DOJ employees had shredded Inslaw 
related documents. 

- 238 - 

files and removed all privileged documents, replacing each with a 
single sheet of yellow paper that bore a number corresponding to a 
Vaughn - type index for the privileged documents. Both the 
privileged and non -privileged documents were placed in an unlocked 
cabinet in an unlocked storage room on the same floor as Spooner's 
office in the Todd Building. Any person who worked on that floor 
had access to the file cabinet. 

The Committee's investigators came to that floor to review the 
documents. The non -privileged documents were made available to the 
Committee's investigators in a conference room across the hall from 
the area where the documents were stored. The investigators were 
escorted to that room and files of documents were brought to them. 
No one from DOJ was present in the conference room with them, on 
occasion, one of the investigators accompanied Spooner to the 
storage room across the hall to retrieve more files. So far as 
Spooner is aware, the investigators never went to the storage room 

while reviewing the non -privileged documents, the 
investigators concluded that they would need to see the privileged 
documents as well. A second agreement was reached between DOJ and 
the House Committee whereby DOJ granted access to its privileged 
documents. Again, the investigators went to the office of the 
Commercial Litigation Branch to review the documents. 

Typically, Spooner pulled files for the investigators' review 
a day before they arrived. For the first few days of her review, 
she pulled files other than her own. The review proceeded without 

- 239 - 

incident. When she went to the file cabinets to pull her own 
privileged files, she noticed that one of four binders of her 


documents was missing. Spooner could not recall when she last used 
this file before discovering that it was missing, although she was 
certain that she used it several times after its creation. 

Upon discovering that the binder was missing, Spooner directed 
her secretary to try to locate the file. When it could not be 
located, Spooner sent out an office-wide notice directing all 
attorneys who worked on the Inslaw case to search their files and 
desks for the missing file. When the Committee investigators next 
arrived, Spooner advised them that one of her files was missing, 
and she provided them with other files of privileged documents. 

Later, Spooner searched her house and car. She notified her 
supervisor and the Office of Legislative Affairs about the missing 
file. A look-a-like file was created, and every employee on the 
floor was required to examine the look-a-like file, search his or 
her office for the real file, and report the results of the search 
to a lead secretary. 

Thereafter, DOJ management analysts searched the offices, 
including desks and file cabinets, on Spooner's floor for the 
missing file. The analysts then went to the Archive Center in 
Rockville, Maryland, and searched the boxes of files of cases that 
had recently been closed by any attorney in Spooner’s office who 
might have accidentally picked up the missing file. Despite these 
efforts, the file has not been found. 

- 240 - 

It has, however, been largely reconstructed. Spooner knew 
from the Vaughn - type index and from memory that the missing file 
contained some trial notes, internal memos, and other materials. 
The memos and some of the other materials were simply duplicate 
copies of documents contained in other attorneys' files. As a 
result, much of the missing file was reproduced and made available 
to the Committee. 

The Committee does not allege in its report that anyone 
intentionally destroyed the file. There is a suggestion, 
nevertheless, that the file may have been destroyed because it 
contained documents that implicated DOJ officials in a criminal 
conspiracy relating to inslaw. 

Such suspicion strikes us as far-fetched. First, there are no 
suspects. Spooner surely is not a suspect. She is the one who 
initially preserved, compiled and indexed the documents. If she 
had been intent upon destroying unfavorable information, she could 
have done so without arousing any suspicion simply by destroying 
the documents before they were bound and indexed. Moreover, 
although her announcement of the loss of the file might arguably be 
part of an elaborate cover-up, we think it more likely that, had 
she actually destroyed the file, she would have said nothing and 
waited to see if the investigators noticed that it was missing. In 
addition, Spooner appeared to us to be extremely credible and 
genuinely concerned about the loss of the file and the consequences 
of that loss. We credit her version of the event. Incidentally, 
Spooner herself believes the file was misplaced, not stolen. 

- 241 - 

we found no evidence to implicate anyone else. Many people 
had some access to the unlocked storage room in which the missing 
file had been located. Even the Committee investigators had 
limited access to the storage room and therefore the missing file. 
By no means do we suggest that one of the investigators stole the 
file. We found no evidence to support any such suggestion. 
Instead, our point is to underscore the near impossibility of 
prosecuting anyone for destroying the Spooner file based on 
circumstantial evidence. 

D. Allegation that DOJ Interfered With the House 
Committee's interview of Riconosciuto 

The House Committee also reported that DOJ interfered with its 
efforts to obtain information from Michael Riconosciuto. 
Specifically, after the Committee had arranged to interview 
Riconosciuto at a county jail , 95 DOJ informed the Committee that 
the interview could only be conducted at the U.S. Courthouse in 
Seattle. Thereafter, the Committee investigators asked the 
Assistant United States Attorney who was prosecuting Riconosciuto 
to provide a sworn statement that the interview would not be 
monitored or recorded by DOJ. According to the House Committee's 
report, the AUSA declined, stating that it was not DOJ policy to 
record private conversations between clients and their attorneys. 

95 Riconosciuto was in federal custody, but was housed at a 
county jail pursuant to a contract between the jail and the U.S. 
Marshal's Service. • 

- 242 - 

and he considered the Committee’s interview of Riconosciuto to be 

of the same category. 96 

The Committee also reported that DOJ refused to allow the 
Committee access to DOJ's investigative files on Riconosciuto or to 
interview the agents who arrested him. It stated that DOJ used as 
a justification for these refusals the fact that the investigation 
of Riconosciuto was on- going. It appears to us that the 
Committee's report may be slightly inaccurate on this point, when 
the Committee investigators first visited Riconosciuto it was just 
days after Riconosciuto ' s arrest. It may well be that a request 
made at that time for the investigative fil£s was denied. The AUSA 
who tried the case told us, however, that shortly after he was 
assigned the case (in late summer of 1991) he called one of the 
Committee's investigators and offered to give the Committee 
complete access to all files on the Riconosciuto investigation. 
The AUSA told us that nobody from the Committee ever followed up on 
this offer, which was made over a year before the House Committee 
issued its report. 

We did not attempt to resolve this conflict. The underlying 
controversy, such as it is, appears largely to raise questions of 
comity. The complaints of the committee investigators raise 

96 The prosecutor to whom this request was made told us that he 
found the Committee's request for a sworn statement offensive. We 
are inclined to agree, since the investigators were, in effect, 
asking the prosecutor to give a written affirmation that he would 
not commit a felony. Yet, the mere fact that Committee 
investigators thought they needed such an assurance reveals their 
skepticism about the integrity of DOJ attorneys and the depth to 
which the relationship between DOJ and the Committee had fallen. 

- 243 - 

questions of criminal law only insofar as the Committee Report 
insinuates that DOJ arrested Riconosciuto, threatened to monitor 
his interview, and refused to disclose investigative information in 
an effort to muzzle Riconosciuto and cover-up DOJ's involvement in 
the theft and sale of Inslaw's software. We investigated these 
insinuations and, as is reported in our findings and conclusions 
regarding Riconosciuto and the alleged conspiracy with Earl Brian 
(Part v.A.l above), we found absolutely no evidence to support the 
claim that there was a connection between the prosecution of 
Riconosciuto and his statements to the House Committee. 


Our investigation has not comp rehens ively covered all of the 
allegations Inslaw has made during the course of its disputes with 
the DOJ. In addition to the allegations described above, about 
which we have reached and stated conclusions, there are other 
allegations as to which we conducted only preliminary 
investigations. For the reasons discussed below, based on what we 
found during our preliminary review of these remaining matters, we 
do not believe further investigation of these matters is likely to 
uncover substantial evidence of criminal or other intentional 
wrongdoing by DOJ. 

A. Allegations Concerning Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin 

While the adversary proceedings against the DOJ were pending, 
Inslaw filed an unusual objection to the application for fees filed 
by its former counsel, Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin. The Dickstein, 
Shapiro firm had originally represented Inslaw in prosecuting its 

- 244 - 

adversary complaint against DOJ. Ratiner was the Dicks tein 
Shapiro partner in charge of the matter. In its objection to 
Dickstein, Shapiro's application. Inslaw charged that the firm, 
because of pressure by DOJ, forced Ratiner out of the firm and 
effectively abandoned Inslaw. Bankruptcy Judge James F. Schneider 
found there was no credible evidence to support Inslaw's charge. 
The Bankruptcy Court concluded that inslaw' s allegations of 
wrongdoing were "built upon supposition, suspicion and 
uncorroborated hearsay, all of which [are] unworthy of belief." In 
re Inslaw , 97 B.R. 685 (Bankr. Ct D.D.C. 1989). The Senate 
Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations also investigated Inslaw's 
claim. The Senate Staff also found no proof of any DOJ pressure on 
the Dickstein, Shapiro firm which in any way affected the firm's 
representation of Inslaw. 

In the light of the conclusions reached by agencies of both 
the judicial and the legislative branches of government, we saw no 
reason to investigate the Dickstein, Shapiro matter any further and 
we determined early in the course of our investigation not to 
independently investigate these allegations. More recently, Ari 
Ben-Menashe has published a book in which he claims to have seen 
evidence suggesting that the Dickstein, Shapiro firm was to be paid 
$600, 000. by Hadron or Earl Brian in order to remove Ratiner from 
the firm. in light of our conclusions about Ben-Menashe ' s 
testimony noted elsewhere in this report, we see no reason to 
reopen our investigation because of this implausible claim. 

- 245 - 

B. The Death of Joseph Daniel Casolaro 

As part of our inquiry, we reviewed the investigation 
undertaken by local authorities concerning the death of Joseph 
Daniel Casolaro. Casolaro was a self-styled free-lance au- 
thor/investigative reporter investigating claims made by Inslaw. 
According to second-hand accounts, Casolaro was reportedly 
investigating suspected links between the Inslaw controversy and 
what Casolaro called "the Octopus," supposedly a secret intelli- 
gence organization with links to international arms -dealing, covert 
operations, and, perhaps, organized crime. Casolaro had told 
several persons he planned to meet a source in Martinsburg, west 
Virginia. Casolaro 's body was found in the bathroom of his hotel 
room at the Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg on August 10, 1991. 
Casolaro died in the bathtub. Both wrists were slashed several 
times with a razor blade. His death was ruled a suicide by local 
authorities . 

Casolaro' s death has attracted a great deal of attention in 
the press, at least in part because of the threat posed whenever a 
reporter investigating a story is found dead under questionable 
circumstances. We have reviewed the investigation of Casolaro 's 
death to assure ourselves that no improper influences were brought 
to bear on the investigation and that the conclusions of the 
investigation were supported by substantial evidence. 

First, we have concluded that there is no evidence suggesting 
that DOJ exerted any influence on the investigation conducted by 
the local West Virginia authorities concerning Casolaro 's death. 

- 246 - 

A private citizen's death, whether a suicide or a murder, is 
outside the normal jurisdiction of the federal government. 
Instead, it is a state or local matter. Accordingly, we find 
nothing unusual in the fact that DOJ did not undertake to 
investigate Casolaro's death. We have found no evidence of any DOJ 
involvement in the investigation into the circumstances of 
Casolaro's death, beyond the normal and expected assistance law 
enforcement agencies typically provide one another. Specifically, 
aside from assistance and information sharing between the local 
authorities and the regional FBI office, we have found no evidence 
of any federal government influence on the local investigation. 

Second, the physical evidence in Casolaro's hotel room 
strongly supports the conclusion of the local authorities that the 
death was a suicide: 

There was no sign of forced entry to the hotel 

There was no evidence that a struggle occurred; 

A note was found in Casolaro’s room. The note 
stated: "To my loved ones, Please forgive me -- 

most especially my son -- and be understanding. 
God will let me in." 

There were no indications that the personal effects 
found in the hotel room had been disturbed; 

Although there was extensive pools of blood and 
blood stains throughout the room in which the body 
was found, there was no evidence, such as foot 
prints, that others were present when Casolaro's 
wrists were slashed. 

Third, subsequent tests and analyses of the physical evidence 

corroborate the conclusion of suicide: 

Handwriting analysis of the suicide note confirmed 
that it was written by Casolaro; 

- 247 - 

Fingerprint analysis of the bathroom and the pad of 
paper in which the suicide note was found revealed 
the prints of Casolaro and no others except for a 
single print on the bottom of an ash tray. The 
existence of Casolaro’ s prints, and the absence of 
others, support the conclusion that Casolaro was 
alone and tend to negate the possibility that 
someone "wiped down" the premises; 

Hair and fiber analyses conducted on items from the 
scene revealed no evidence that others were present 
in the hotel room; 

An analysis of the blood stains and related physi- 
cal evidence conducted by Dr. Lee of the Connect- 
icut State Police Forensic Science Laboratory 
concluded that the evidence was consistent with a 

The autopsy found that the cause of death was the 
hemorrhage from the multiple wounds to the wrists. 

No evidence from the autopsy or subsequent tests of 
blood and urine revealed any evidence that Casolaro 
was unconscious or debilitated when his wrists were 

The autopsy revealed no contusions, lacerations, or 
trauma to the body of the kind that one might 
expect were Casolaro involved in a struggle. 

Fourth, subsequent police interviews of those with knowledge 
of Casolaro’ s activities during the two days preceding his death 
failed to develop any substantial evidence that any other person 
had the means or opportunity to murder Casolaro. 

Fifth, there was ample reason to believe Casolaro had a motive 
to commit suicide. He had been for all practical purposes 
unemployed for months. He was dependent upon financial assistance 
from his family to support himself. The balloon mortgage on his 
home was soon to be due. Moreover, shortly before his death he was 
told by a prospective publisher that the publisher would not 
advance him any monies on his proposed book about the "Octopus." 

- 248 - 

The foregoing facts persuade us that Mr. Casolaro's death was 
fully and fairly investigated and that the conclusion of the local 
authorities that his death was a suicide was amply supported by the 
facts. Indeed, in an independent review of the autopsy James E. 
Starr, Professor of Law and Forensic Sciences at George Washington 
University, reportedly has arrived at the same opinion as that 
expressed in this report. Several criticisms that have been made 
of the investigation do not alter our opinion that Mr. Casolaro's 
death was correctly determined to be a suicide. 

It has been suggested that "immediately following the 
discovery of the body, the room was not sealed by Martinsburg 
authorities potentially allowing for the contamination of the 
possible crime scene." Our review of the Martinsburg Police 
Department's report does not confirm this allegation. On the 
contrary, upon the Police Department's arrival at the scene, the 
hotel room was examined, photographs were taken, and the coroner 
was called and investigated the scene. No evidence supports the 
speculation that the scene was subsequently contaminated after the 
body was released by the coroner to a local funeral home. On the 
contrary, the results of the fingerprint evidence collected when 
the hotel room was dusted for fingerprints on August 12 suggests 
that there was no contamination. 

It has also been suggested that there was undue delay in 
notifying Casolaro's next-of-kin following the discovery of his 
body and that, in the meantime, Casolaro's body was embalmed, 
possibly limiting, the effectiveness of the autopsies or toxico- 
logical examinations. There was some delay in notifying Casolaro's 

-249 - 

next-of-kin. Martinsburg authorities requested the assistance of 
the Fairfax County, Virginia, Police Department in order to 
personally notify next-of-kin. Next-of-kin, however, were not at 
home when visited by the Fairfax authorities and apparently did not 
respond to a request that they call. In the meantime Casolaro's 
body was embalmed. The medical examiner, however, was of the 
opinion that the embalming did not impair his ability to perform 
the autopsy and to perform necessary tests. 

Finally, it has been suggested that the Martinsburg author- 
ities failed to give appropriate weight to various suspicions that 
had been voiced by several people, including Casolaro's family 
members and friends, that various "sources" whom Casolaro had been 
interviewing might have been responsible for his death. The 
Martinsburg Police did receive a number of suggestions, of various 
quality and specificity, that Casolaro conceivably could have been 
killed because of his investigation into the Inslaw matter and 
other allegedly related subjects. Aside from wholly speculative 
possibilities, no credible evidence suggested that any of 
Casolaro's "sources" played any role in his death. Substantial 
physical evidence supported the conclusion of suicide. We do not 
believe the circumstances warrant an exhaustive investigation to 
exclude every conceivable possibility that any of the several 
potential "sources" suggested as potential participants in a hypo- 
thetical murder plot did not in fact murder Casolaro. 

C. The Alleged Sham Contract Disputes 

During the pendency of the adversary proceedings initiated by 
Inslaw in the Bankruptcy Court and throughout most of our 

- 250 - 

investigation, various disputes and related claims arising under 
the implementation contract were also pending before the Department 
of Transportation Board of Contract Appeals ( "DOTBGA" ) . (As 
previously noted, the contract disputes were presented to dotbCA 
pursuant to the provisions of the Contract Disputes Act because DOJ 
has not established its own board.) The disputes between inslaw 
and DOJ before DOTBCA concerned Inslaw's claims for allegedly 
reimbursable costs (computer center costs, other direct costs, 
"out-of -scope" work, overhead and fringe benefits), additional 
fees, and amounts due pursuant to DOJ’s termination for convenience 
of the word processing portion of the implementation contract. DOJ 
also filed claims in the DOTBCA proceedings to recover certain 
overpayments allegedly made to Inslaw under the contract. Most of 
the issues before DOTBCA were not passed upon or decided as part of 
the adversary proceedings before the Bankruptcy Court. Indeed, 
prior to the hearing on Inslaw’s adversary complaint. Bankruptcy 
Judge Bason entered an order specifically excluding from the trial 
before him issues such as the controversy over the computer center 
charges, the withholding of payments by DOJ, and the termination of 
the word processing portion of the contract. Neither the Senate 
PSl's Staff Study nor the House Committee Report made any findings 
on the merits of the claims before DOTBCA. 

Similarly, we did not examine the merits of the claims before 
the DOTBCA in great depth. The issues before DOTBCA touched only 
indirectly upon the allegations of conspiracy and other criminal 
misconduct that were the focus of our investigation. Moreover, we 
had anticipated that DOTBCA would soon hear and determine the 

- 251 - 

parties' claims under the implementation contract. The hearing on 
the merits of the parties' claims was scheduled for the autumn of 
1992. in October 1992, however. Inslaw unilaterally moved to 
withdraw its claims before DOTBCA. In a lengthy eighteen page 
brief. Inslaw claimed to be unable to afford counsel to prosecute 
its claims. The bulk of Inslaw's brief, however, took exception to 
several adverse, pre-hearing rulings of DOTBCA and reargued the 
merits of some of the same claims Inslaw had previously made before 
the Bankruptcy court. without specifically addressing the 
assertions made in Inslaw's motion to withdraw, DOTBCA, without DOJ 
objection, granted the motion. Accordingly, Inslaw's appeals 
before the Board were dismissed with prejudice on November 9, 
1992. 97 

In light of the final disposition of Inslaw's claims by 
DOTBCA, we did not believe it was appropriate to reexamine the 
parties' monetary claims presented to DOTBCA or to attempt to 
determine the esoteric government cost accounting issues that were 
the principal subjects of the DOTBCA proceedings. It is 
unfortunate that Inslaw chose not to pursue its claims before 
DOTBCA. Almost from the beginning of the disputes between DOJ and 
Inslaw, Inslaw has claimed that DOJ, because of self-interest, 
improper personal influence, or some other extraneous factor, has 
been unable to fully and fairly determine the merits of Inslaw's 

97 A1 though DOJ also had filed claims before DOTBCA, DOTBCA 
found that DOJ's claims had been limited to "set-off status, that 
is, they [could] only be used as set offs against any amount which 
the Board might find to be owing to Inslaw." In light of this 
ruling, the allowance of inslaw' s motion to withdraw its claims 
necessarily disposed of all claims before the Board. 

- 252 - 

claims, whether they be contractual, criminal or otherwise. When 
offered the opportunity to have some of its claims determined by 
another department that presumably would be free of such 
influences, Inslaw gave up its right to a full hearing and a 
determination of its claims. 

Although there was no hearing on the merits of the parties' 
claims, a disposition with prejudice is nevertheless a final, 
binding disposition. Accordingly, as a civil matter inslaw is 
almost certainly not entitled to retry the merits of its contract 

We did, however, consider the parties' claims before DOTBCA to 
the extent we believed necessary to determine whether the DOJ's 
positions and actions leading up to the parties' disputes were so 
clearly baseless or without foundation as to give rise to a 
reasonable inference that the origins of the disputes must have 
been motivated by improper purpose and a desire to force inslaw 
into bankruptcy. In other words, were these "sham contract 
disputes" that were deliberately engineered by DOJ in order to 
force Inslaw into bankruptcy and to surrender its rights to the 
PROMIS software? Or, instead, did legitimate differences of 
opinion concerning the parties* rights give rise to the parties' 
contract disputes? Our preliminary review of the parties filings 
before DOTBCA and related discovery and documentary evidence leads 
us to believe that the latter conclusion is the correct one. 

During 1983 DOJ suspended payment to Inslaw of certain 
invoices for computer center costs . As part of the implementation 
project, Ihs law provided temporary computer services directly to 

- 253 - 

U.S. Attorneys’ . offices until their own PROMIS systems were 
installed. This service required that Inslaw provide access to its 
computers at its own computer center. Pursuant to the 
implementation contract, inslaw billed DOJ for these services. In 
April 1983, Inslaw requested a modification of the contract to 
allow increased time sharing costs, which inslaw attributed to 
higher than projected usage by the U.S. Attorneys' offices. In 
reviewing this request, the contracting officer became concerned, 
not just about a potential cost overrun, but whether inslaw's cost 
accounting for these services overcharged the government. This 
concern ultimately led to the partial suspension of payment of 
inslaw' s invoices for computer center services pending an audit of 
Inslaw's costs. 

Whether the contract permitted suspension of payments of 
invoices has been questioned. Regardless of whether contractual 
provisions permitted suspension of payments, however, the issue 
relevant to our inquiry is the purpose and motive of the suspension 
of payments. The evidence we reviewed indicates that videnieks 
suspended payment of invoices for computer center services because 
of genuine concerns about potential cost overruns that were brought 
to his attention by Inslaw's request for a contract modification. 
Inslaw's request led to a technical analysis by Jack Rugh. Rugh's 
analysis clearly raised the prospect of substantial overcharges 
having been made by Inslaw. Based on Rugh's analysis, videnieks 
immediately requested audit staff assistance to investigate the 
computer center costs. The audit staff recommended that Videnieks 

- 254 - 

consider suspending payment of invoices relating to computer center 
costs . 

It is telling that when the audit staff eventually completed 
its audit of Inslaw's computer center costs for the relevant period 
of time, fiscal year 1983, the staff concluded that Inslaw had 
overcharged the government more than $400,000. Perhaps more 
significant was the audit staff's conclusion that inslaw's cost 
records were essentially unauditable and its recommendation that 
the contracting officer deny all of Inslaw’s claimed computer costs 
because its method of accounting for computer center costs was so 
unreliable, indeed, Inslaw appears to have changed its system of 
accounting for computer costs for subsequent fiscal years. 

After the contracting officer’s initial decision to suspend 
payment of computer center costs, DOJ in negotiations with Inslaw's 
counsel agreed to and did modify its suspension policy and released 
some funds in order to avoid undue hardship upon Inslaw . This 
conduct, in our opinion, is consistent with a good faith attempt to 
protect the government from potentially serious cost overruns and 
overcharges, and belies inslaw's claim of a plan to force it into 
bankruptcy. The circumstances would not seem to support a finding 
of any motive or desire upon the part of any DOJ employee to 
inflict harm upon inslaw or to force it into bankruptcy. 

There were similar cost accounting disputes between the 
parties relating to other cost accounting issues and relating to 
other fiscal years. The net result of these controversies was that 
by the time that the implementation contract ended in 1985, Inslaw 
was claiming it was entitled to millions of dollars from DOJ and 

- 255 - 

DOJ was claiming that it was entitled to a similar amount by way of 
a counterclaim. The events leading up to many of these disputes 
are long and many of the issues complex, but in every significant 
case DOJ's claims were backed up, not just by the opinions of the 
EOUSA or the contracting officer, but also by reports of DOJ audit 
staff. Moreover, the Defense Contract Audit Agency ("DCAA"), an 
agency independent of DOJ, subsequently audited Inslaw’s books and 
records for the bulk of the contract period and concluded that 
Inslaw was overpaid approximately $590,000. Even if the DCAA's 
conclusion is incorrect, we believe it provides considerable weight 
to our conclusion that whatever the merits of the parties’ contract 
disputes, the government’s positions about overcharging and cost 
overruns were founded upon legitimate, good faith concerns and the 
desire to protect the government's interests, and not out of the 
desire to bankrupt Inslaw or to force its liquidation. 

D. Response Of DOJ To Claims of Brewer Bias 

In May of 1982 one of Inslaw's outside attorneys complained to 
DOJ officials that Brewer was biased against Inslaw and William 
Hamilton, and that this bias was causing Brewer to treat Inslaw 
unfairly in connection with the EOUSA contract. According to 
Inslaw, Hamilton had fired Brewer from his job as General Counsel 
for the institute for Law and Social Research, Inslaw's 
predecessor, and Brewer’s actions in connection with the contract 
were designed to extract a measure of revenge against Hamilton. 
Between 1982 and 1985, Inslaw repeated this complaint to various 
DOJ officials on several occasions, usually when questioning one of 
the decisions of Brewer or the contracting officer. Bankruptcy 

- 256 - 

Judge Bason found that DOJ "ignored" Inslaw's claims of bias, and 
suggested that it did so because Deputy Attorney General Jensen had 
a "previously developed negative attitude about PROMIS." 

OPR thoroughly investigated this allegation during 1988 and 
1989. In its March 31, 1989 report, OPR concluded that there was 
no misconduct by any past or present DOJ employees in connection 
with their responses to Inslaw's claims of bias. We found OPR's 
conclusions to be both reasonable and consistent with the evidence 
we obtained and reviewed in connection with our investigation of 
other allegations. Therefore, we have not independently 
interviewed all of the various witnesses implicated by this 
allegation. We feel it appropriate, however, to mention several 
items that came to our attention during our review. 

To begin with, we agree with the conclusion reached by the 
Senate Subcommittee Staff, that in hiring a former Inslaw employee 
to be the Project Manager of the PROMIS project DOJ was not 
sufficiently attentive to the potential for the appearance of a 
conflict of interest. Bankruptcy Judge Bason felt that "such prior 
employment would generally lead the former employee either to favor 
or disfavor the former employer, thus preventing that person from 
being impartial in the discharge of his duties." While reasonable 
people could disagree whether the potential conflict would, as 
Bason assumed, always become an actual conflict, it appears to us 
that the appearance of such a conflict should have weighed against 

- 257 - 

hiring an individual to administer a project where his former 
employer is the primary vendor to the project . 96 

That said, however, there is no evidence that DOJ knew or 
should have known, prior to hiring Brewer as Project Manager, that 
there was any acrimony between Brewer and Inslaw. To the contrary, 
the evidence presented during the Inslaw adversary proceeding 
indicates that DOJ’s inquiry to Inslaw about Brewer produced no 
hint of trouble between Brewer and Hamilton. EOUSA Deputy Director 
Lawrence McWhorter testified that he called William Hamilton to ask 
about Brewer, and that Hamilton told him he would have no problem 
working with Brewer. Hamilton testified that he did not remember 
such a call, btft that he was aware that one of Inslaw’s senior 
officers, John Gizzarelli, remembered Hamilton telling him about 
such a call at about the time DOJ hired Brewer. Likewise, Inslaw's 
former General Counsel, John Kelley, testified at trial that 
Gizzarelli told him that prior to Brewer's hiring by DOJ Hamilton 
had told DOJ that inslaw would have no problem with Brewer. In 
other words, Hamilton did not deny at trial that McWhorter had 
called him, and the testimony of at least three people indicated 
that such a call did take place. Yet, Bankruptcy Judge Bason found 
that McWhorter did not call Inslaw to ask about Brewer. We believe 

98 We do not say that no reasonable person could have hired 
Brewer for the position. DOJ officials have stated that they felt 
that Brewer's prior experience with the institute was a positive 
factor, giving Brewer valuable knowledge of both PROMIS and Inslaw 
that could only help in administering the project. Moreover, the 
six year time lag between Brewer's hiring and his work at the 
Institute, along with inslaw' s initial lack of objection to Brewer, 
could be viewed as factors in favor of hiring Brewer. Our point is 
that DOJ appears to have been insensitive to the countervailing 
appearance* of a potential conflict of interest. 

- 258 - 

this finding was not only plainly erroneous, but indicative of the 
degree to which Bankruptcy judge Bason was willing to reject any 
evidence that did not support his theory of bias and revenge. 

In any event, it is undisputed that prior to May 1982 Inslaw 
did not claim to DOJ that Brewer had been fired. Nonetheless, 
Bankruptcy Judge Bason found that, faced with inslaw's allegations 
of bias, it was unreasonable for DOJ officials to accept Brewer's 
claim that he was not fired. Based on our preliminary review, we 
do not share that opinion. 

We found little evidence to support the image of the 
acrimonious departure that Bankruptcy Judge Bason's written opinion 
conjures up. Indeed, we found a surprising degree of agreement in 
the testimony of Brewer and Hamilton about the circumstances of 
Brewer's departure. Both said that they were of the shared opinion 
that Brewer was not fitting in well at the Institute," and both 
agreed that Brewer was given a long period of time in which to find 
a new job. While their testimony differed slightly as to who first 
decided that Brewer should leave, both agreed that the departure 
was not acrimonious. Perhaps it did not occur to Bankruptcy Judge 
Bason that in many cases the termination of an employee's 
employment, even in cases where it was suggested that the employee 
should look for a different position, is not an occasion for ill 
will, or feelings of hatred, and not necessarily viewed as a 

"william Hamilton testified that he told Brewer in April or 
May of 1975 that he did not think "the fit [between the Institute 
and Brewer] was a good one." Even according to Hamilton, however. 
Brewer said at that meeting that "he did not think the fit was a 
good one from his perspective either," and that "he desired to 
leave the Institute as well at that point." 

- 259 - 

"firing". In many cases, such as the case here, it is ambiguous 
whether the departure was voluntary or involuntary. 

In addition, our investigation found little evidence of the 
deep- seeded desire for revenge that Bankruptcy Judge Bason found to 
be the explanation for most of Brewer's conduct. 100 in our 
discussions with Brewer he made no effort to hide his views about 
Hamilton and Inslaw. Brewer candidly told us that early during the 
implementation contract he reached the conclusion that Hamilton was 
dishonest and that Inslaw did not intend to live up to some of its 
obligations under the contract. As we indicated earlier, we 
believe this view caused Brewer and others to be aggressive in 
asserting what they felt were the government's legitimate rights 
under the contract. But it also appears to us that Brewer’s 
opinions of Hamilton were based primarily on Hamilton’s conduct in 
connection with the 1981 BJS contract and the 1982 EOUSA contract 
and not due to the circumstances of his leaving the Institute six 
years earlier. Brewer referred to numerous incidents and reasons, 
all unrelated to his departure from the institute, that formed the 
basis of his opinions of Hamilton. Brewer's credible explanation 
of his conduct, along with Hamilton's own description of an 
amicable departure, support the conclusion of DOJ officials that 
Brewer was not biased against Hamilton. 

100 Because we determined {for the reasons discussed in the 
previous sections) that Brewer and others at DOJ did not attempt to 
steal Inslaw's software or destroy Inslaw, we did not dwell 
extensively on Brewer's personal feelings about Hamilton. We did 
interview Brewer and others about the matter, however. 

- 260 - 

It is also important to note the context in which inslaw' s 
claims about Brewer's "firing" arose. This charge was usually made 
in connection with Inslaw's appeal of one of Brewer's (or 
videnieks') decisions concerning the administration of the PROMIS 
implementation contract, or during discussions to attempt to reach 
a negotiated settlement of the parties' disputes. The charge was 
made in such a way to suggest that the DOJ's position was unfair 
and arbitrary. in other words, the charge was made to color the 
motives for a DOJ decision and to suggest that the decision was 
unreasonable. In this context, the individuals to whom Inslaw made 
its claims about Brewer's bias understandably had reason to doubt 
those claims, particularly where their review of the merits of 
DOJ's position convinced them that DOJ was being neither irrational 
nor unreasonable. Based on our preliminary review of this issue, 
we found no misconduct in DOJ's handling of Inslaw's claim that 
Brewer's "firing" caused him to be unfair to Inslaw and "out for 

E . Inslaw's Proof Of Private Financing 

Earlier in this report (in Part VI) we expressed the opinion 
that DOJ officials could have made a greater effort to determine if 
the version of PROMIS delivered pursuant to Modification 12 in fact 
contained any privately financed enhancements. We considered 
whether we should attempt to make that determination ourselves. We 
reviewed the testimony presented at the adversary hearing, as well 
as certain other evidence that was produced during discovery. It 
was obvious to us that in order properly to evaluate the quality 
and the reasonableness of Inslaw's proof we would need, at a 

- 261 - 

minimum, to obtain assistance from experts in the fields of 
accounting,, software engineering, and government contracts. In 
light of the magnitude of such an undertaking, and given Inslaw's 
limited cooperation with our investigation, we decided to pursue 
other aspects of our investigation. 

It later became apparent that our analysis of and conclusions 
regarding Inslaw's allegations of criminal and other intentional 
misconduct did not require a determination whether the allegedly 
enhanced PROMIS was in fact proprietary to Inslaw. Because our 
investigation focused on determining whether there was any criminal 
or intentional misconduct by DOJ employees, our inquiry required us 
only to examine what conduct occurred find why. Thus, we were more 
interested in trying to determine why and how DOJ obtained the 
allegedly enhanced version of PROMIS than in whether the 
enhancements were in fact proprietary. In our view, it would have 
been wrong for DOJ employees to "steal" the enhanced version of 
PROMIS even if it later turned out that the enhancements were not 
privately funded. Similarly, because the evidence showed that DOJ 
employees acted in good faith in obtaining and installing the 
allegedly enhanced PROMIS, we believe that it was irrelevant to our 
investigation whether Inslaw could assert a valid claim of 
proprietary interest in that version of PROMIS delivered under the 
contract. The question whether DOJ misappropriated the allegedly 
enhanced software, the issue addressed in this report, is entirely 
separate from the issue whether DOJ's use of the allegedly enhanced 
PROMIS was a breach of contract. The breach of contract claim was 
a civil matter that Inslaw could have litigated in the proper 

- 262 * 

forum, the DOTBCA, but instead chose to present as a novel legal 
theory in the Bankruptcy Court. in the end, that was an 
unsuccessful litigation strategy. This report expresses no opinion 
on that issue. 101 

101 As noted elsewhere, we believe DOJ’s current use of PROMIS 
{which is limited to EOUSA and the U.S. Attorneys' offices) is 
permitted under Modification 12. If DOJ wishes in the future to 
use "enhanced" PROMIS beyond EOUSA, then it will need to determine 
whether Inslaw has a‘ vklid claim of proprietary interest. That is 
a question that is beyond the, scope of our investigation. 

- 263 * 


Based oh all the evidence discussed in this report, we find 
that there is no credible evidence to support either the allegation 
that there was a scheme to defraud Inslaw, or the allegation that 
DOJ employees conspired with Earl Brian to steal inslaw' s software. 
Although we believe (for the reasons discussed in Part VI above) 
that it would have been preferable for DOJ employees to have told 
Inslaw why DOJ rejected Inslaw's attempted proof of private 
financing, we are convinced that these employees genuinely believed 
that they were acting within DOJ's rights under the contract. 

In retrospect, it is easy to see that both Inslaw and DOJ 
possibly could have avoided many of their disputes by acting more 
wisely. If, for example, inslaw had maintained a historical 
version of PROMIS that contained only the features called for in 
the EOUSA contract, it could have simply delivered that public 
domain version of PROMIS when asked by DOJ for a copy of the 
software being used to perform the contract. In that way, all of 
the questions about DOJ "stealing" a proprietary version of PROMIS 
would have been avoided. Similarly, if at the time of its original 
request for a copy of the software being used to perform the 
contract DOJ had insisted on an enhancement- free version of PROMIS, 
it could have avoided the problems that later arose in implementing 
the resolution procedures of Modification 12. 

The disputes between DOJ and Inslaw were fueled by the mutual 
distrust that appears to have characterized Inslaw's relationship 
with DOJ. While we do not share Bankruptcy Judge Bason's view of 
Brewer as a man consumed with hatred and out to destroy inslaw, it 

- 264 - 

does appear to us that, for the reasons discussed in this report, 
Brewer and others at DOJ distrusted William Hamilton, and felt a 
need to be aggressive in asserting what they believed to be the 
government's rights under the contract. At the same time, Hamilton 
and others at Inslaw distrusted Brewer, and quickly came to the 
conclusion that he and Videnieks were motivated by personal animus. 
Once they had reached that conclusion, every contract decision made 
by DOJ that was adverse to Inslaw seemed to them to be further 
evidence of a desire to ruin Ins law. 

while this atmosphere possibly explains Inslaw's claims that 
it was the victim of unfair and biased conduct, it offers no excuse 
for the ever- expanding allegations of widespread criminal conduct, 
especially the claims of a criminal conspiracy involving Earl 
Brian, the CIA, former Attorney General Meese, and others. We 
spent considerable time and resources trying to find evidence of 
the type of criminal conduct described by William Hamilton and his 
lawyers in their various affidavits and memoranda. As we have 
described in detail in the previous pages, there is a total lack of 
credible evidence to support the criminal conspiracy theories 
alleged by Inslaw. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Fed. B. Crim. P. 6(e) 

- 265 - 

Material Omitted Pursuant 
Ped « E.. Crim* p #i 6(e). 


We cannot fail to note also the degree to which William 
Hamilton's statements and assertions do not withstand scrutiny. We 
repeatedly encountered witnesses who, in a very credible way, 
denied making the statements attributed to them by Hamilton. The 
witnesses who contradicted Hamilton were both friend and foe of 
Inslaw, and we could not explain the constant contradictions as 
simply the efforts of Hamilton's enemies. 

There have now been at least five 104 formal investigations 
into the claim that DOJ officials engaged in a criminal conspiracy 

■Material Omitted Pursuant to 
?ed... E._ Crim.. P.. 6(e). 

104 OPR, DOJ*' s Criminal Division, the Senate Permanent 
Subcommittee on investigations, the House Judiciary Committee, and 
us . 

- 266 - 

to steal PROMIS for the benefit of Earl Brian and other "friends" 
of the Reagan-Bush administrations. Not one investigation has 
concluded that such a conspiracy existed. To the contrary, four of 
those investigations (including ours) have specifically concluded 
that there is insufficient evidence of any such conspiracy. Even 
the House Committee, which concluded that the allegations should be 
further investigated, stopped short of making any findings about 
the alleged conspiracy. It is remarkable that even after these 
separate investigations concluded that there is a lack of evidence 
to support the allegations made by inslaw and others about a Brian* 
DOJ conspiracy, the claims still are repeated in the popular press. 
We are not so naive to believe that bec.ause we add our voice to the 
chorus the accusations of conspiracy will now end. But we note 
that the intense media coverage given to these claims of a criminal 
conspiracy reflects not so much the existence of any credible 
evidence to support the claims, but rather the willingness of many 
to repeat the allegations without regard to whether they are 
supported by any credible proof. 

In summary, for all the reasons discussed in this report, we 
find that there is no basis for initiating any criminal charges or 
disciplinary action against any past or present DOJ employees. 

- 267 - 


On the Review of Special Counsel 
Nicholas J. Bua’s Report on the Allegations of INSLAW, Inc. 

September 27, 1994 

[Portions of this report have been deleted 
pursuant to Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.] 

Table of Contents 


I. Introduction 1 

II. Scope Of Review 3 

III. Summary Of Conclusions And Recommendations 7 

IV. The Allegations Of A Conspiracy By Department Of 

Justice Officials To Steal PROMIS And Distribute 
It Within The United States Government And 
Internationally 11 

A. AnonymOtis Sources 17 

B. There Is, No Credible Evidence Supporting 
INSLAW's Allegations Of A Conspiracy 

Involving Judge D. Lowell Jensen 19 

1. Ronald LeGrand's Confidential Source 23 

2. Marilyn Jacobs 28 

3. Janis Sposato 29 

C. ThOre Is No Credible Evidence Supporting 
INSLAW ?s Allegations Regarding A Department 

of Jiistice/Earl Brian Conspiracy 30 

1. Michael Riconoscuito 32 

2. Ari Ben-Menashe 36 

3. Charles Hayes 41 

4. circumstantial Evidence Of A Conspiracy .... 43 

5 . John A. Belton 50 

6. The Alleged Videnieks/Hadron Connection .... 53 

7. conclusions Regarding A Brian/DOJ 

conspiracy 58 

D. There Is Insufficient Evidence To Conclude That 

INSLAW * s PROMIS Has Been Distributed By The 
Department Of Justice To Other Agencies Or 
DSpart&ents Of The U.S. Government 59 

1. There Is No Evidence That The FBI's FOIMS 
System Was Pirated From Or Based On PROMIS. 59 

2. There Is No Credible Evidence That INSLAW's 
PROMIS Is In Use Or Has Been In Use In Any 
Agency Of The U.s. Government Other Than 

The Department Of Justice 67 

E. There Is No Credible Evidence That The Department 

Of Justice Or Individuals Involved With The 
Department Of Justice Improperly Distributed 
PROMIS Software To Foreign Governments Or 
Entities 72 

1. The Alleged Distribution Of Enhanced 

PROMIS To Israel 74 

2 . The Alleged Distribution Of Enhanced 

PROMIS To Canada 81 

3. The Alleged Involvement Of Robert Maxwell 
In The International Distribution Of 


F. There Is No Evidence That The Department Of 

Justice's Office Of Special Investigations Is 
A "Front" For The Department's Own Covert 
Intelligence Agency 86 

G. There Is No Credible Evidence That INSLAW- 
Related Documents Were Improperly Destroyed 

By The Justice Department Command Center 89 

H. There Is Insufficient Evidence To Support 

INSLAW's Allegation That Department Of Justice 
Employees Conspired To Improperly Convert 
INSLAW's Bankruptcy Case 94 

I. There Is No Credible Evidence That The Depart- 
ment Of Justice Obstructed The Reappointment 

Of Bankruptcy Judge George Bason 99 

J. Conclusion 102 

The Weight Of The Evidence Indicates That J. Daniel 
Casolaro Committed Suicide 107 

A. scope Of Review 110 

B. Casolaro' s Death 112 

1. Discovery Of The Body 112 

2. The Death Scene 113 

3 . Interviews Of Hotel Employees 117 

4. The Coroner's Investigation 117 

5. Handling Of Death Scene Following 

Removal Of Body 118 

6. Examination And Embalming Of The Body At 

The Funeral Home 118 

7. Notification Of Next-of-Kin 121 

C. The Autopsy 123 

D. Additional Police Investigation 127 

E. Our Investigation 132 

1. "The Octopus" 132 

2. August 5-10, 1991 134 

3. Mr. Casolaro's state Of Mind In 

August 1991 145 

4. Allegations Concerning Mr. Casolaro's 

Death 157 

F. Conclusion 168 

VI. The Attorney General Should Not Appoint An 
Independent Prosecutor To Further Investigate 

INSLAW's Charges 169 

VII. The Department of Justice Should Not Authorize The 

Payment Of Any Additional Compensation To INSLAW 172 

A. The History Of INSLAW's Monetary Claims 173 

B. INSLAW is Barred From Asserting Any Additional 

Claims Against The United States 178 

C. The -Circumstances Surrounding- INSLAW's 

Allegations Do Not Warrant The Waiver By The 
United: states Of The Statutory Time Bars To 
INSLAW's Monetary Claims 180 



In March 1982, the United States Department of Justice 
awarded a $10 million, three-year contract to INSLAW, Inc. , to 
install the public ddmain version of a case management software 
program in 20 large U.s. Attorneys* offices around the country 
and a modified word processing version of the same software in 74 
other offices. The software, developed by INSLAW with public 
funding from the Law Enforcement Assistance Administration, is 
known as the' Prosecutor ' s Management Information System or 

The relationship, between the Department and INSLAW quickly 
deteriorated into a? series of disputes that have continued for 
over 12 years. The most important early dispute centered on the 
question whether ilNSLAW had any; proprietary rights in an 
allegedly enhanced version of the software that INSLAW used to 
perform its obligations under the contract, and, if so, .whether 
the Department Was obligated to compensate INSLAW for use of the 
enhanced software in an amount greater than that called for in 
the contract. 

In the intervening. years, the allegations, of , misconduct on 
the part of Justice Department officials made by INSLAW have 
growrt c considerably. INSBAW and its principals, have accused 
Department officials of everything from conspiring to destroy 
INSLAW and steal* the PROMIS software to being actively involved 
in the fourder of a free-lance journalist. They have also alleged 
that a version of PROMIS modified on a California Indian 

reservation with a "trap door" that allows eavesdropping by U.S. 
and Israeli intelligence agencies has become a major tool in the 
arsenals of those organizations, in the process of making these 
allegations; they and others have linked incidents involving the 
Justice Department's relationship to INSLAW with, among other 
things, the alleged conspiracy carried out by the Reagan campaign 
in 1980 to delay the release of American hostages held in Iran 
until after thte 1980 election^ the Iran-Contra affair and the 
late British publisher Robert Maxwell. 

The dispute has spawned a lengthy bankruptcy proceeding that 
was eventually dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, several 
related duits including one seeking the appointment of an 
independent ’counsel , two congressional investigations and a 
series of internal Department reviews and inquiries. On 
November 7, 1991, then Attorney General William Barr appointed 
Judge Nicholas J. Bua to serve as a special counsel to 
investigate all allegations of wrongdoing related to the INSLAW 
affair. Ih ; March ‘1993, Judge Bua and his staff submitted their 
report to rieVly appointed Attorney General Janet Reno. Judge 
Bua's report concluded that there was no credible evidence of any 
cri^inaii^'^rbrigdoitig^dh r l!ifte part of any past or present Department 
employee. ’■ w ■' ' ? ~ . .. 

After providing INSLAW with an opportunity to comment on 
Judge Bua's findings, Attorney General Reno ordered a senior- 
level review Of Judg r e : Bua ' s- r report and INSLAW ' s analysis of that 
report ahd directed that Whatever > additional i invest igation 


necessary to advise her on how to proceed on this matter be 
undertaken. This report summarizes the analysis and 
investigation undertaken pursuant to the Attorney General 1 s 
mandate and contains our recommendations. 

II . Scope of Review 

It should be noted at the outset that this report does not 
purport to reflect a completely new ahd separate investigation of 
all of the allegations relating to the INSLAW matter. Rather, 
this report primarily reflects our independent conclusions 
reached aft:er a detailed review of the investigation and report 
of the Special Counsel as well as the documentation and testimony 
accumulated in several other investigations. Accordingly, this 
report should be read ifi OonjunctiOn with the Special counsel's 
report, "a cOpy of which is attached as Addendum A to this 
report . 1 

We have, however, conducted our own interviews and performed 
our own investigation relating to a few select allegations where 
we believed INSLAW raised legitimate questions in its rebuttal to 
the Special Counsel's report or where we believed additional 

■J’ ■ V ■ ■ , n’, - , f 2 

. 1 Because we^ intend this report to constitute a review of 
the Special CounSei^s report and to be read in conjunction with 
that. report, we have not repeated all of the allegations made by 
INSLAW that We£e addressed in the Special Counsel's report or all 
of the investigatory findings of the Special Counsel . Nor have 
we restated "i:he frabts Ooncernirig the reiatioriship between INSLAW 
and the .Department of Justice, ,It is our intention that the 
Special ‘Counsel T s report be considered the primary document and 
our analysis constitute a supplement to it. 

- 3 - 

efforts were warranted.. In addition, INSLAW's allegations are 
constantly expanding and evolving. To the extent INSLAW raised 
new allegations following the completion of the Special Counsel's 
report that warranted additional investigation, we attempted to 
perform an appropriate review. 

Our review and analysis included the following steps: 

Review of the Special Counsel's Investigation : We carefully 

studied the Special Counsel's report, the July 12,. 1993 Analysis 
and Rebuttal of the Bua. Report submitted by INSLAW ("INSLAW 
Rebuttal") and the February 14, 1994 Addendum to the Analysis and 
Rebuttal of the Bua Report also submitted by IljTSLAW ("INSLAW 
Addendum"). In addition# we reviewed the papers, documents and 
testimony compiled by the Special Counsel and his staff during 
their sixteen-month investigation and spoke, with several of , the 

r - 

investigators about the investigation and their conclusions. The 
primary purpose of this review was to ensure that the results of 
that investigation fully supported the conclusions reached by the 
Special Counsel., and .were not reasonably susceptible to different 

INSLAW and its counsel have been extremely critical of the 
Special Counsel's report. Although those criticisms are 
contained in great detail in the INSLAW Rebuttal and INSLAW 
Addendum submitted to the Department of Justice, we held several 
meetings .’with INSLAW ' s principals , William "and^NanCy Hamilton, 
and its^, counsel to be; Sure that they 1 had an, opportunity to 
present fully the. evidence that they maintain supports their 


allegations* In addition to a general meeting , we also met with 
the Hamiltons and their counsel on one occasion to discuss their 

monetary .claims against the government and on another occasion to 
allow them to, present evidence related to the death of J. Daniel 

Casolaro, a free-lance journalist who police have concluded 
committed suicide but INSLAW maintains was murdered. „ These 
meetings lasted several hours. 

Review of other Investigations : We also carefully reviewed 

the reports prepared by other entities both within and outside of 
the Department of Justice on INSLAW* s allegations, and we have 
read the various, judicial opinions that have been issued. 
Although. we analyzed all the available reports and published 
opinions, we concentrated our efforts on the two that were most 
critical of the Department of Justice: the September 10, 1992 
report of the House Committee on the Judiciary, "The INSLAW 
Affair," .and the January 25, ^1988 opinion of Bankruptcy Judge 
George F. Bason, Jr. in In re INSLAW. Inc. . 83 B.R. 89 (D.D.C. 

1988) . . ... ^ 

We are grateful to Chairman Jack Brooks and his staff for 
their cooperation . during our review of the House Committee on the 
Judiciary report ("[House Report"). The Committee made all of the 
documents , , notes . and testimony compiled by the Committee 
investigators available to us. We carefully analyzed those 

documents that Were the most relevant to our review. 2 

t. i'i . • •> •* ■ 

did not* seek access to the records relating to the 
September j.§&9 report}; of theJPerinanent SubObinmittee - on 
Investigations of the Committed 1 oh i Governmental 1 ' Affairs of the 


We also carefully read and analyzedf Judge Bason's opinion. 
While we did not review all the transcripts of the bankruptcy 
proceedings nor all of the exhibits introduced, we did spend a 
considerable amount of time reviewing documents and testimony 
presented during those hearings. 

Anonymous Sources : Many of the allegations made by INSLAW 

have been based on statements that anonymous sources have 
allegedly made to Mr. Hamilton. According to INSLAW and Mr. 
Hamilton, these individuals — many of whom are allegedly senior 
officials at the Justice Department and other government agencies 
— are fearful that if they come forward they will fall victim to 
reprisals. Because of the change in Administrations and the new 
leadership at the Justice Department, we were hopeful that these 
alleged sources would feel comfortable speaking directly with us. 
As discussed below, we made considerable efforts to provide 
reasonable safeguards that would have protected any alleged 
sources were they to have come forward. Unfortunately, only one 
such source (and this source "belonged" to a Senate investigator 
and not to Mr. Hamilton) agreed to speak with us. 

Investigation of the Death of J. Daniel Casolaro : INSLAW 

was also extremely critical of the Special Counsel's review of 
the investigation undertaken by local West Virginia authorities 

United States Senate ("Senate Staff Report") for two reasons. 
First, the Senate staff Report concluded that there was no 
evidence of a conspiracy involving Department of Justice 
officials and, thus, is largely consistent with the Special 
Counsel's Report. Second, the Special Counsel was provided 
access to those records during his investigation but was not 
provided access to the House records. 


following the death of Joseph Daniel Casolaro. Mr. Casolaro was 
a free-lance writer who had been investigating claims made by 
INSLAW at the time of his death in 1991. Although local police 
twice concluded that the cause of Mr. Casolaro 's death was 
suicide, INSLAW and others have asserted that he was murdered in 
order to keep him from revealing information he had uncovered 
involving the government's wrongdoing in connection with INSLAW. 
We committed substantial resources to investigating the 
circumstances surrounding Mr. Casolaro' s death. The breadth of 
that investigation and the conclusions reached are provided in 
detail in Section V below. 

Other Investigation : In addition, we investigated several 

of the allegations made and ! leads provided by INSLAW that were 
not included in the other investigations. Those efforts focused 
on, among other things, INSLAW's allegations concerning the 
distribution of PROMIS to other government agencies and INSLAW's 
allegation that software currently in use by the Federal Bureau 
of Investigation is actually INSLAW's PROMIS. Those and other 
efforts are described in detail in the relevant sections of this 

III. Summary of conclusions and Recommendations 

Following our review and analysis, we reached the following 
conclusions and- recOmmendat ions: 

(1) We recommend that the Attorney General adopt the 


Special Counsel 's report in its entirety. ,More r specif ically, we 
recommend that the Attorney General adopt the following 
conclusions reached by the Special , Counsel , all of. which are 
fully supported j by the available evidence: , 4 

There is^ no credible evidence to .support the allegation 
that members of DOJ conspired with Earl Brian to obtain or 
distribute; • PROMIS.. software . The overwhelming weight .of they 
evidence is that there was absolutely no connection between 
Earl Brian and anything .related to Inslaw or, PROMIS 

There is woefully insufficient evidence to support the 
allegation that DOJ obtained; aiv enhanced ye^rs ion : 
through' "fraud, trickery, and deceit," or that DOJ 
wrongfully districted fROMIS within or outside of DOJ. To 
the contrary, we are convinced that DOJ employees undertook 
actions with respect to Inslaw that they genuinely believed 
were in the best legitimate interests of the government. 

We also find that DOJ conducted itself properly after 
it; became involved in*} litigation with Inslaw. , .. 

. We . find thatythere is no credible evidence /that- DOJ.,. 
employees sought to improperly influence the selection 
process that} resulted in the decision not to; r eappo i nt 
Bankruptcy Judge Basbn. 

We find that there is insufficient evidence to support 
the allegations that* DOJ. employees attempted to .improperly 
influence the U.S. Trustee to convert the Inslaw bankruptcy 
case, or that DOJ employees committed ;per jury in jorder to 
hide this bbstructidn. 

Finally, we find that there is no evidence to support 
the allegation that DOJ; employees destroyed any documents 
related to Inslaw or otherwise acted improperly in order to 
obstruct congressional investigations into Inslaw's 

(Bua Report 13-14.) 

(2) We also find that there is no credibl.e evidence that 
employees of the Department of Justice conspired with ( anyone to 
steal PROMIS ofccto injure INSLAW in any other way..«- 

8 - 

(3) There is no credible evidence that the Office of 
Special Investigations in the Justice Department's Criminal 
Division is engaged in covert intelligence activities or that it 
has participated in the illegal trafficking of PROMIS software or 
in the death of J. Dahiel Casolarb. Rather, the Office of 

Special Investigations appears ‘ to be wholly committed to its 
mission of locating World War II War criminals and other related 


matters. j 


(4) The cohclusion reached by Martinsburg, West Virginia 
authorities that the death of J. Daniel Casolaro was a suicide is 
fully supported by the facts surrounding his death. There is no 
credible evidence that Mr. casolaro was murdered. Furthermore, 
there is no credible evidence linking any Justice Department 
official or any individual other than Mr. Casolaro himself to his 


(5) We find there is no bas 
independent prosecutor to further 

Accordingly, we recommend that the Attorney General not appoint 


any such counsel. 

(6) We find, after reviewing all the issues raised by 
INGlaw, that the circumstances sujrrounding these allegations do 
not warrant the waiver by the United States of statutory time 
bars to INSLAW's various monetary 'claims against the government 
and recommend that the Attorney General not accede 1 to INSLAW's 
requests for monetary bompensation. INSLAw was provided a full 

is for the appointment of an 
investigate these allegations. 

and fair opportunity to litigate its claims against the 
government before the appropriate administrative and judicial 
tribunals. There is no credible evidence that individuals 
associated with the .Department ^f Justice or any other government 
agency did anything to frustrate those efforts. Furthermore, we 
find that the positions taken by the Department on the issues in 
dispute were fully supported byi the facts of the case. The 
ability of INSLAW and its counsel to keep this matter in the 
public spotlight by making a series of unsubstantiated 
allegations linking this affaiiq to some of the major alleged 
conspiracies of the last 15 years should not be rewarded by 
acquiescing to their monetary demands. 

(7) Finally, we recommend that the Attorney General take 
those steps necessary to bring this entire affair to closure from 
the Department’s perspective. INSLAW's allegations have resulted 
in two congressional investigations, several internal Department 
of Justice inquiries, the appointment of a Special Counsel and 
numerous law suits. The Special Counsel concluded, and we 
concur, that virtually all of these allegations were based on 
nothing mote than uncorroborated conjecture, on hearsay 
information from anonymous , sources or on information received 
from patently unreliable sources. In the process, the reputation 
and integrity of several Justice Department employees have been 
unfairly impugned.. We, .cannot pleasure the toll those attacks have 
taken. However, ye believe that a statement from the Attorney 
General that she considers the matter closed (absent the 


discovery of compelling and verifiable evidence contrary to the 
conclusions contained in this report) would at least begin the 
process- of remedying the effects of INSLAW's groundless 

| . ( , 

IV. The Allegations Of A Conspiracy By Department Of Justice 
Officials To Steal PROMIS And Distribute It Within The 
United States government And Internationally. 


* * j • . . 'V-. 

INSLAW has made numerous allegations concerning conspiracies 
among high-level DOJ officials to siteal INSLAW's Enhanced PROMIS. 
Although it is difficult to summarize those charges, they revolve 
around several basic theories. INSLAW's counsel described those 
various theories as constituting concentric circles with the 
outer circles encompassing the broadest and most far-reaching 
conspiracies. As a review of those theories will indicate, the 
conspiracy allegations have evolved over time, overlap with each 
other in some significant respects,; and, on occasion, contradict 
one another. The primary focus of the Special Counsel's 
investigation was on these conspiraicy accusations. 

The most basic conspiracy theory focuses on the relationship 
between Madison Brewer, the Department of Justice official with 
primary responsibility to oversee the implementation of the 

■ i. :• i j O ■■ ' ‘ 'K? J ,1 , V ■' 

PROMIS contract, and INSLAW. According to this theory, Mr. 

Brewer was consumed by hatred for both INSLAW and Mr. Hamilton as 
the result of his dismissal as general counsel of INSLAW's non- 
profit predecessor in the late 1970s. As a result, Mr. Brewer, 
in his role as the administrator of INSLAW's largest and most 

- ll-jr ■ 

important contract; set out to destroy the company. Peter 
Videnieks, the i Department's contracting officer for the PROMIS 
contract, was allegedly an important accomplice in that effort. 

An important element of this theory is the role played by 
Judge D. Lowell Jensen. According to INSLAW, Judge Jensen was 
the central figure in an effort *jto force* INSLAW out of business 
so that DOJ's PROMIS -based business could be awarded to political 
friends and supporters of the then-current administration." 
(INSLAW Rebuttal 67-71.) From 1981 to 1986, when he was 
appointed to the District Court for the Northern District of 
California, Judge Jensen served successively as Assistant 
Attorney General for the Criminal Division, Associate Attorney 
General and Deputy Attorney General. According to INSLAW, Judge 

Jensen was driven by the fact that he believed the Department of 

■-■■■ ; r * 1 . ■ |> ' ■ ■ '■■■:■' - • . • '• • - 

Justice made a mistake in installing PROMIS as its case 

•’ ' •: ' <■ j- ■ ■-■VO ... ; * . 

management software rather than a competing software product that 
had been developed under Judge Jensen's supervision when he 
served as District Attorney of Alameda County, California in the 

• j . ■ ^ j . . 


INSLAW maintains that Judge Jensen "engineered" a series of 
sham contract disputes with INSLAW to drive it out of business. 

Furthermore, Judge Jensen allegedly furthered this conspiracy by 

■ ■■■' ^ • f-*" > j ■*- . 4 ■ • . ■ ; 

ignoring INSLAW's complaints about the conduct of Mr. Brewer in 

the implementation of the PROMIS Contract and by failing to refer 

• - K 'if, .. i • ' • 

certain allegations to the Office of Professional Responsibility. 

i .. ■ 

Another conspiracy theory advocated by INSLAW focuses on Dr. 


Earl Brian. According to this theory, high level DOJ officials ' 
conspired^ with Dr; . Brian, a businessman and formerly California's 
Secretary of Health and Welfare ^uncfer Governor Ronald Reagan in 
the early 1970s, to steal PROMIS and destroy INSLAW. According 
to IN S LAW >! the goal of „ this alleged conspiracy was to force 
INSLAW into: bankruptcy so that Hadrony Inc.; a company connected 
with Dr. t B rian, could buy INSLAW.' s assets, including its rights 

to PROMIS. Subsequently, the Justice Department would award 
Hadron a- "massive sweethearts contract. " 

The evidence that INSLAW maintain^ proves the existence of 
this conspiracy focuses on efforts allegedly made by Hadron and 
related entities to purchase INSLAW's assets. INSLAW asserts 
that key Hadron officials travelled to New York in September 1983 
to raise, $7 million for the ^acquisition of INSLAW's PROMIS. When 
those efforts failed, INSLAW claims:* that Dr; Brian and the 
Department of Justice adopted; another vehicle to . provide Dr. 

Brian with the sweetheart deal from his friends in the Reagan 

Administration. In order to ensure >that INSLAW would not be in a 
position to-disrupt that deal, INSLAW maintains that Systems and 
Computer Technology, Inc. , at the ejncouragement of the 
Department, attempted to purchase INSLAW. Those efforts were 
also unsuccessful. 

iracy. This conspiracy theory 

A closely' related but distinct! series of allegations center 
around the "October Surprise" consp: 
is largely the same ras the Brian cdr 
However, this ; theory contains, twot 

jnspir acy descr ibed above . 
important additional -•••• 

allegations. >First, it I maintains that Dr. Brians was involved in ' 
various covert operations and; that "he had a central role in 
bringing about a delay runtil hftet- the 1980* Presidential election 
in the release of 'the American hostages held by Iran. ("The 
INSLAW Case: Crimes, Criminals, and Grounds for Prosecution," ‘ 

Memorandum to Judge Bua from INSLAW, January 14, 1992 ("INSLAW 
Crimes?'] 42-43 . ) ■. The allegedi conspiracy undertaken by the' Reagan 
campaign to delay the' release of the American hostages has been 
commonly referred to in the media as the "October* Surprise. "> 
Second, this theory asserts that Department officials ^ 
participated with' Dr. Brian and Hadron in a conspiracy to steal 
PROMIS in order- to reward Dr.’ Brian for his key role in the 
successful- October Surprise conspiracy. 

The next series of conspiracy theories advocated by INSLAW 
center on the roles uallegedlyr played by Various UiS. and foreign 
intelligence agencies. The firstf alleges that the primary ' 
motivation behind the alleged > theft of PROMIS was "to use it as a 
means of penetrating the intelligence and law enforcement 
agencies of other governments'*" (INSLAW Crimes 33.) According to 
a summary of crimes allegedly! committed in relation to'these 
matters submitted the Special Counsel by INSLAW, the scheme 
worked as follows: 

The first step in this 'scheme was the sale to the foreign 
government of a computer into which had been inserted a 
. microchip ; capable of transmitting to a U.S. surveillance 
system the electronic signals emitted by the computer when 
in user Where ~ stich a sale would have violated* U. S. export 
administration regulations, U.S. intelligence personnel 
would connive With the - U , S . Customs Service tb^slip the 
computer past the normal controls. To facilitate the 

14 * 

National, Security Agency’s. ability to "read" the signals 
transmitted fay the microchip, the software used in the' 
computer had to be a product with which the, U. S . was already 
familiar. As explained in part 1(A) (1)' above, Enhanced 
PROM IS has capabilities that make it ideally suited to 
tracking the aritivitie's of a spy network. ' it was necessary, 
therefore, ( to induce the foreign purchaser of a doctored 
computet also to purchase PROMTS : ‘ 

( INSLAW Crimes 33-34.) According to INSLAW, Dr. Brian was the 
principal’ sales agent of PROftls to foreign governments and 

Also, according to INSLAW, modifications to Enhanced PROMls 
were made' by Michael' Riddriosciuto in a trailer on' the Cabazon 

Indian Reservation In Indio, California in the early 1980s. 
According to INSLhw- he modified PROMls with a ’’trap door” which 
allowed electronic eavesdropping by the united States government. 

A slightly hr odder conspiracy' theory advocated by INSLAW 
alleges 1 tliait the Department of Justice and Israeli intelligence 
agencies acted ris partners in the theft arid international 
distribution of PRbMIS. INSLAW also asserts that the late 

British publisher Robert Maxwell assisted Israeli intelligence 
agents iri the dissemination of PROMIS to the intelligence and law 
enforcement’ agencies of other governments arid to- International 
commercial banks. ! According r to this theory/ Israeli intelligence 
agerits also colluded ^ith Department of Justice officials to 

preverit INSLAW froin fiilly litigating its claims against the u.s. 
government. Accordirig to INSLAW, an T Israeli agerit ’’provided 
$600,000 from a sl’uSh fund/ that was jointly controlled by" u.S. 
and Is ra4l i int ell igence , iri Order td get INSLAW* s lead counsel 
fired so that INSLAW coUld no longer prosecute its PROMTS 


proprietary rights anti license fee claims against' the U. S. 

Justice Department.," (INSLAW Addendum 16 . ) 

Finally, m the Addendum to INSLAW *s. Analysis and Rebuttal 
of the Bua Report dated February 14 ,,1994, INSLAW advanced for 
the first time its latest. conspiracy allegation. According to 
INSLAW, the Office., of. Special Investigations ("osi") in the 
Criminal Division of the Department of Justice is, in fact, the 
Department's own. covert intelligence agency with functions 
totally unrelated to OSI' s declared mission,. of locating and 
deporting Nazi war. criminals. INSLAW. asserts that OSI 
participated in illegal trafficking of PROMIS software and in the 
alleged murder of ; Mr . Casolaro. 

Although tha, aboye summary attempts to group INSLAW's many 
accusations, into discrete conspiracy theories in. order to make 
them more readily .understandable,, INSLAW generally does not make 
these distinctions. , ^Rather, INSLAW apparently maintains that all 
of the allegations summarized above constitute one large 
conspiracy to deprive, INSLAW of its r rights, in the PROMIS software 
and to profit at,, INSLAW's. expense. Furthermore,. INSLAW alleges 
the , conspir a cy wa% carried out by, among other, things, (.1) the 
coverup of the involvement of. Department officials, including the 
commission of, per ju*Y ty several, Department employees during and 
after the .ba.ntc^pt<^ v ,^o^^din9S^r (2) the interference by 
Department , officials,, with the reappointment, of Bankruptcy Judge 
George Bason;. (3) the illegal distribution of Enhanced PROMIS to 
other agencies, within the U*S* r government; (4) the-illegal 


distribution of Enhanced PROMIS to foreign governments and to 
international banking organization^; and (5) the murder of 
journalist J. Daniels Casolaro. j 

INSLAW has based the majority of its allegations on 
statements allegedly made by individuals with first-hand 
knowledge of relevant events but wlko insist - on anonymity due to 
fear of government reprisals.. In Exhibit B — "A Synopsis of 
Specific claims WjouI^ U.S. .Department of Justice (DOJ) 

Malfeasance Against INSLAW Made by Credible Individuals Who Are 
Fearful of- Reprisal" — to INSLAW' s Rebuttal, INSLAW describes ll 
such individuals and summarizes the information each has 
allegedly provided to INSLAW. According to INSLAW, these 
anonymous sources include six current or former Justice 
Department officials, two officials of unspecified, ti. S . 
government agencies, a former World Bank employee , a computer 
programmer- aboard a ; U. S . nuclear submarine* and a trusted friend 
of the Hamiltons who "has a close relationship with one or more 
persons currently holding senior level, positions in the Central 
Intelligence Agency." INSLAW has referred to other anonymous 
sources in other parts of its rebuttal and in other papers 
submitted ?;to the. Department of Justice. 

One of the central ; goals of oar review of the Bua Report was 
to create an atmosphere that would encourage these alleged 
sources to come forward. We hoped that the change of 

administrations and. the appointment of Attorney General Janet 
Reno would be key factors in that; effort. Furthermore, the 
Associate Attorney General asked INSLAW's counsel in a letter 
dated September 20, 1993 to convey the following extraordinary 
assurances to the alleged sources; 

First, the review of thi entire matter is being 
conducted by attorneys in my j office at my direction. 
Accordingly, the interviews of the subject witnesses will be 
conducted by attorneys from my office who have had no prior 
involvement in the INSLAW master in any way’i ’ In addition, 
attorneys from the Attorney General ' s Office and the Deputy 


Attorney General ' s Office may participate in Some 
interviews. v If it is necessary to include other individuals 

'we iirill do so 


from the Department in 

only, after notifying the withess and receiving his or her 
approval.! ' ‘ ,y:r ‘' ■ ’’ ^ 

Second, the distribution of the information obtained 
from these interviews will be, limited to the Attorney 
Genera '5 office J'" the Dejinity 1 Attorney General ' s Office and 
my office to the extent possible. The distribution of any 
information beyond these 1 offices will be done on a rieed-to- 
know basis only . Any disclosure of information provided by 
these witnesses thht might lOad to the 'identification of any 
such witness to individuals who have previously been 

involved in the 


approval of the Attorney General. 

i my approval or the 

1 1 

Third, the Attorney General and I provide our personal 
assurances that wewill hot: tolerate any acts of reprisal by 
Department employees against! individuals cooperating with 
this invest i”'-* r ‘ ! f • ' 

Attorney General 'S Office, • 

bearing on IN: 

In addition, an individual was designated within the Associate 

to INSLAW's request , to 

receive information bearing on inslaW's claims in confidence. 

Despite these exceptional hf 
source contacted the Associate's 
willingness to cbdper'ate ^ith Our 

we asked INSLAW arid 

fdrts, not a single INSLAW 
office or otherwise indicated a 
review. On several -occasions, 

counsel to communicate the Attorney 

General '.Sj assurances and to encourage the alleged sources to 
speak with us. According to Mr. Hamilton, several sources 

indicated to him that /they will not 

come forward unless an 

independent counsel is appointed to investigate INSLAW's 
allegations while others allegedly insisted that the Attorney 
General .make a public statement guaranteeing their protection 
from reprisals. | 


There Is No Credible Evidence 
Allegations Of A Conspiracy In 
Jensen ♦ ’ ’ ’ 

Supporting INSLAW's 
jvglving Judge D. Lowell 

iNSLAW has made numerous allegations involving a Department 
of Justice conspiracy spearheaded by united States District Court 
Judge D. Lowell Jensen to destroy INSLAW and acquire PROMIS. 
During the period in which Judge Jensen allegedly "engineered" 
this conspiracy, he served successively at the Department as 


General for the 

Criminal Di vis ion , 

disputes with INSLAW and ignored IN 
allegedly unfair treatment at the h 
Jensen was allegedly driven fc* 

Attorney General and Deputy Attorney General. According to 
INSLAW, ‘.Judge Jensen engineered a series of sham contract 

•s complaints abdut its* 
df the Department. Judge 
fact that he believed a case 
ed by the Alameda County 



(California) District Attorney's Office while he waM District 
Attorney wlis superior to tMe PROMI Si “program . 

INSLAW points principally to the* following facts as "direct" 
evidence o£ judge Jensen's involvement in a conspiracy: ' 

( 1 ) ’ *lls bis%ridt Attorney^ of 

- 19 f 

■*' , : - •i- - -y • . , 

Alimeda County in California 

in the 1970s, Jensen developed case management software which 
competed unsuccessfully against PJtoMIS in California. By the 
time Jensen came to DOJ in early 1981, he believed that? DOJ had 
been wrong to prdkote the use of PROMIS by district* attorneys • ' 
offices instead o-f his own case management software. " 

(Declaration of William Hamilton', December 22 , 1989 ("Hamilton 
12/22/89 Decl. "] 4.) 

(2) According to INSLAW,, a Department of Justice source 
told Ronald LeGrand, chief "investigator for the senate Judiciary 
Committee, that "Jensen engineered INSLAW's problems right from 
the start." The source also allegedly identified several senior 
Department officials who .allegedly had information concerning 
Judge Jensen |s involvement. 

(3) Acco^ing to s Mr. Hamilton, "An informant who does not 
wish to be named.vmtil .assured of protection against reprisal 
told INSLAW with regard to the sham contract t disputes that in 
1984, Marilyn Jacobs,. Jensen's secretary at DOJ, stated to the 
informant that * Jensen was the main person behind the INSLAW 
problem' and that 'his style was to operate using his 
subordinates. ' " (1 (Hamilton 12/22/89 Decl. 11. ) 

(4) Janis Sposato, Deputy, Assistant Attorney General for 
Administration^, allegedly told INSLAW during settlement 
discussions involving a dispute over., computer time-sharing 

* «» i-tij ■ Cl : 1 ■ , ' ! . '.I i V* . i *•; \> .5 ' .f ** t'lj, ' Cl'-y ■ ; ' 

billing,, in 1985 that, "My management upstairs is unwilling to 
allow me to make anymore concessions." According to INSLAW, "At 

the time, Sposato repoirted jdirectly to the Assistant Attorney 

.... | ■ 

- 2 J) - 

General for Administration, whose offices were on the same floor 
as Sposato's. That individual, howtever, reported, in turn, 
directly to Deputy Attorney Generali Lowell Jensen, whose offices 
were several floors upstairs. INSLAW inferred then and infers 
now that Sposato was alluding to Deputy Attorney General Lowell 
Jensen's unwillingness to permit a resolution on the merits of 
the Fiscal Year 1983 computer time-sharing issue because it was 
DOJ's main ’fig leaf' for its wrongful withholding of payments 
under the contract.” (INSLAW Rebuttal 69.) 

. • »-• ,i * ■■■*.. < •«. - , j - 

(5) According to INSLAW, William Tyson, then Director of 
the Executive Office of United States Attorneys, told Mr. 
Hamilton during a meeting on May 2, 

your only problem. There is a Presidential appointee in the 
current Administration who is so an 
INSLAW that I have to maneuver to k 
of the U.S. Attorneys for fear that he will so poison the well 
that the project will have no chance of success." (INSLAW Crimes 
10-11, n 7*) According to INSLAW, the presidential appointee 

-••4 . ' f i • :• .* ■ v ^ v v r . - 

referred to by Mr. Tyson must have been Judge Jensen. 3 

7 ■=>/ *-< 

1983, "Brick Brewer is not 

tagonistic to PROMIS and 
eep him away from the meetings 

3 Mr. Tyson denies making such a statement to Mr. Hamilton. 
Nevertheless , BankrTiptOy' Ifudge Bason arid INSLAW ’ both argue that a 

March’ '29 1987 1 i&Mer "slsrftr* 4>y *Vt £ . Tysoh to Jiidge Jansen vowing to 

continue den^ii^ %nder oath ‘that he had made 'such a statement 
constitutes eVid^nce? that* ‘Mr'.- Tyson actually made the statement 
and -that iippoihfced to who# he reverted. The 

text ‘of thV ^lett'ei?', ' whidh was apparently "sent On the? 1 same day as 
an article quoting from Mr. Hamilton’s affidavit about Mr. 

Tyson’s alleged comments appeared in the Washington Post , states: 

<r • ' • r ; , f? 'iv. .' •'"! V";‘ ' ' - T . ■' 

I did riot make the ‘comments which Mr: Hamilton says? I made'. 
Thdy ar^'SlflS'er’ ffcVStftlbh on hils* part.* I want' you to know 
this because it appears that lie is trying to show that these 

After considering and investigating INSLAW 's allegations of 


Judge Jensen's involvement in a conspiracy with Dr. Brian and 
others, the Special Counsel concluded that there was no credible 
evidence of such a conspiracy. (A discussion of the evidence 
involving Dr. Brian's involvement in the alleged conspiracy is 
discussed in Section IV (C) below.!) 

INSLAW is particularly critical of the Special Counsel's 
investigation due to his failure, according to INSLAW, to 
thoroughly investigate the specific allegations allegedly made by 
Mr. LeGrand's confidential source. INSLAW also criticizes the 
Special Counsel for simply interviewing the Department of Justice 
officials identified by the source rather than calling them 
before the grand jury. (INSLAW Rebuttal 44-46.) 

Because of the extreme importance placed by INSLAW on the 
statements allegedly made by Mr. 
considerable effort working with 

Judiciary Committee and Mr. LeGrand to arrange an interview of 
the source. Those efforts were ultimately successful. The 

LeGrand's source, we spent 

■ .1 (. • 1 

the staff of the Senate 

statements, which I did not make, referred to you. 

. -‘V , "ill O.. *• ; •.?..* % 1 ' s ^ y •. i ; u-' ■ . . ‘ 

My entire meeting with JSr. I amiltori consisted of 1 is ten ing. v 
to his litany of complaints concerning the handling of the 
IN SLAW contra ct>} especially in regard: to Mr . Brewer* 
followed by. my, promise, to look into his complaints. I have 
. denied under oath in *a depos ition this week haying made the 
comments her .claims I made;rand,I will, continue .to: make such 
denials inr any future* proceedings/; n .v ’ • «, , 

Far from evidence of some sort of complicity between Mr. Tyson 
and Judge Jensen r; we .believe the J letter, reflects Mr. Tyson ' s 
sincere concern that Judge Jensen understand that he neyer made 
any- such statements. . -cy : v ' | - t .. ^ 

- 22 - 

allegations attributed to that source and the. results of our 
interview with him are described in detail below. 

Based upon *the results of that and other interviews 
described below and the records of the Special Counsel and House 
investigations, we conclude that there is no credible evidence of 
a conspiracy invalving Judge Jensen or other senior Department of 
Justice officials. 4 - ; j 

l. Ronald, LeGrand ? s Confidential Source 

Of allvthe individuals who have allegedly provided 
information to INSLAW and to others on a confidential basis 

j ‘ ‘ •' 

suggesting* a conspiracy against INSLAW by the United States 
government, the only one to come forward and agree to be 

interviewed during. our review of the Special Counsel's report was 

' •• ; * .<■ .... 

Ronald LeGrand's confidential source. Mr. LeGrand, the former 


investigator for the Senate 

Judiciary Committee , had 

4 Our conclusion rand the conclusion of the Special counsel 

the Senate Staff study that it 
ral Edwin , Meese , Deputy 
or other Justice Department 
iracy to ruin INSLAW, or to 

is consistent with j the findings of 
"found no.: proof that Attorney Gene: 

Attorney? Genera 1 D . .Lowel 1 Jensen 
officials were involved in- a consp 

steal* INSLAW' s product -for, .their own benefit . " ( Senate Staff 
Report 2ZJ. ) Although the Senate -staff did indicateVthat some 
incidents raise ,thef specterjthat; Judge Jensen may have been 
biased against .PROMIS and in favor of jthe Alameda County, program, 
the repdtt concluded: i> < 

Although rsucb bias, to the extent:. J.t,, existed, ^may have led 
Jensen, as the Bankruptcy Court found, to be indifferent to 
INSLAW's complaints about otter Department officials, it 
does not > absent, further evidence t k translate . into 
parstieipation in a abroad, -qpnspiracy to cripple InSLAW for 
the [benefit iof Jensen or other Department of, Justice 
Officials. •••■ The, Staff ; found no such 'further ^evidence. . . 

(Senate Staff Report 27 . j ? We too fai iejd to find any such 

evidence of Judge Jensen's involvement in a conspiracy . 



several conversations in 1988 with an individual who requested 
anonymity regarding the allegations raised by INSLAW. After Mr. 

LeGrand shared" some of the details of those conversations with 
Mr. Hamilton, a major controversy developed as to what 
information the individual ("LeGrand* s Source") actually conveyed 
to Mr. LeGrand. ( See Bua Report 113-120, INSLAW Rebuttal 44-46, 

House Report 61-63.) Despite repeated efforts by the Special 
Cotinsel and investigators from the House Judiciary Committee, 

LeGrand* s Source refused to be interviewed . He did, however, 
agree to be interviewed by us as part of our review. 5 


In an affidavit dated December 22, 1989, MT. Hamilton swore 

to the following: ' •! 

5. In iate : April ! 1988, Rorlald LSGrand, then Chief ■ 

Investigator of the Senate Judiciary Committee, telephoned > 

me to request a full brief ihg on the disputes between * INSLAW J 

and DOJ. My wife and I subsequently briefed LeGrand at 

IN SLAW on €he fcornirtg of May ll* - LeGrand telephoned me: two 

days later with information that he said a trusted source 

has asked him to convey. LeGrand described the source as a 

senior career 1 official *£0 Ddl r "With- a title" whom LeGrand 

had known f or IS year’s arid whose veracity LeGrand could < 

attest tp without reservation. ’ Shortly after DOJ* s , public 

announcement on May S', 1988 'that’ DOJ would not seek the 

appoihtmentof an indepehdent^counsel in the IN SLAW matter 

and that i% had cleared Meese of ahy ^rohgdoing, the source 

t6 Id LfeGrand tlistti * thief iMSiiiW eas^'is ldfc/ dirtier for the 

Depa^meht of Justice thari Watergate was, 5 both in its 

breadth ahiid' ill-' its 1 depth.** * The- source •alsd' ,, suid that the 

"Justice Department has been compromised Orr?the INSLAW, case 

at every level." On several occasions since then, LeGrand 

has Hdhf ifcmed what he told’ me, and on October 11, 1988, 

ifMU t- • •; t4i • - , • ,<• , 

i ;i V *• { : ••• / ,• v; _ 

5 We are gfat4f ul'to ’ the'- 1 Senate Judiciary " Committee , 

Chairman Jpie^h Brdeh,^ the v sSia r €e ; Begar r Counsei , Mr. LeGrand and, 
of course , LeGrand 1 s gourde ifbp cooperating with 'us and -allowing 
us to ihte£Vi'SW IfeGfand * s Sbti'r ce i ? ' LeGrand 's Source stated that 
he was willing to cooperate with' us despite his unwillingness to 
cooperate With of his "respect for and 

confidence iri ' Xttoirfiey' (Seheral 'Penoi ’’ ' ,v 

- 24 - 

Elliot Richardson, counsel to INSLAW, sent Robin Ross, an 
assistant to Attorney General Dick Thornburgh, a memorandum 
summarizing the statements attributed by LeGrand to his 
source. In addition, the source made the following 
statements: - 

a. Jensen engineered INSLAW's problems right from the 
start and relied for this purpose principally upon three 
senipr DOJ ^officials: »jMiles Matthews, Executive Officer of 
the Criminal Division; James Knapp, a non-career deputy 
Assistjmt^ttgi^ey General in the Criminal Division; and 
James Johnston/ Director of Contract' Administration in the 

,* Justice rj Management Division. ^ Mile;s Matthews stated in the 
presence of LeGrand ' s source ‘that "Lowell [Jensen] wants to 
get INSLAW . out; ; of the way and give the business to friends . " 

b. The g source told. LeGrand that s John Keeney and Mark 
Richards [sic], each a career Deputy Assistant Attorney 
General in > the Criminal Division, ,, and Philip White, the r 
recently retired Director of international Affairs for the 
..Criminal Division, knew "all about” the Jensen, malfeasance 

in' the matter . Although Richards (sic] and White 

were ’’pretty upset" about it, the source did. not believe 
that either ot them would disclose what they knew except in 
response to a .subpoena and undjer oath. The source added 

that he did not think either R 
commit perjury. 

[sic] or White would 

■ ■ ■" ’ j • _ 

-jC. The spurce believes that documents relating to 
Project Eagle were shredded inside DO J, but that INSLAW 
should nevertheless subpoena Dp J paperwork prepared by a 
Jensen subordinate relating to the purchase of large 
quantities of computer hardware for which the senior DOJ 
career staff could see no justification. 

(Hamilton 12/22/89 Decl. 19-20.) 

• ■ > a t . ■ ’■ • < / 1 ■ t . v V. i . ... 

According to the House Report,! "Mr. LeGrand provided little 
corroboration of the Hamilton’s [sic] allegations" during a sworn 
statement to house investigators . (House Judiciary Report 62.) 

•.lW.4. . J •• 

J- £■ ' ■"•J-- 

Furthermore, Mr. "LeGrand informed House investigator^ and the 

c.wssrt i .t/.H • ‘i o. ( > L i’ ; f * ... , . 

Special Counsel that, as far as he knew, none of the information 

provided to him by his source was obtained first-hhnd. However, 
Mr. LeGrand diet confirm to both House investigators and the 
Special Counsel that hie believed that fits sburce dictprbvide to 

- 25 4 

him some of the “information reflected in Mr. Hamilton's ■ 

■■ ■ o - 


On February 7, 1994, we met with LeGrand's Source in a 
private d'ihin'g room at 'a local'club. Mb. LeGrand and Morgan 

Frankei, Assistant Le'g’al Counsel tor the United 'States Senate, 

were also* preWent . /Although 



ti :> “ ■ r 

the individual Wfe 1^ t erv iOwe d wai s 

LeGrand 's Sburce irifoifified^usl 

t* «»#• **<r? 

anonymous/ in arty report, he identified himself to Us, and we were 
able to : vet if £ thft'he is a long-time career employee of the 
Department of justice./ : He 'informed us* that he 1 has known Mr. 
LeGrand for a ppfo# imS t e ly 20 years. Mr. LeGrand corif irmed that 

indeed his confidential source, 
that he fias information 

' ' N > .. > • ‘ *•' ; ' T ! 

indicatitf^ that kHyori& at tti& ! De^ttmiht of Ju§tic§ Was involved 
in any wrongdoing involving the FROMIS software or INSiiAW. He 
stated that be ; has ho first-hahd knowledge of any misconduct by 
anyone in relation 'to PROMTS ; or INSLAW. He further stated that 


he would consider credible 

he has net heatd’ any rumors which 
about any such misconduct. 

LeGrand's Source stated that the subject of INSLAW came up 
during a friendly conversation with Mr. LeGrand in ,1987 or 1988. 
During the conversation, he told 

investigating those allegations he would contact Miles Matthews. 
LeGrand's Source said that he suggested contacting Mr. Matthews 
because he was aware that the Justice 

•. . ii.'t-: ;1- J--: :> - r* 

PROMIS in various U.S. Attorneys'! 

«r,3 '*fr f e-'t v * i -- f j 

because he believed Mr. Matthews 

Mr. LeGrand that if he were 

-i; . • /• ■I'M?** r v» ___ Y_.v- r 

had installed 

offices in the early 1980s, 

: '• 1-, . n. >'r ‘i r j Y, ■ > 

was, responsible for procurement 




matters for the 1 Criminal Division at that' time, and because he 
did not particularly like or trust Mr; Matthews. He stated that 
he did not have any information — nor had he heard any rumors -- 
linking Mr. Matthews to any wrongdoing connected^ with INSLAW or 
PROMIS. - ■* .*■- ■ •: 

He also stated that he never mentioned Lowell Jensen, Mark 
Richard, Philip White, James Johnston or James Knapp to Mr. 
LeGrand. He stated that he believed that there was "no way in a 
million years" that: Mr. Keeney would be involved in any 
wrongdoing. LeGrand *S Source also! stated that he did not believe 
any of these other individuals would be involved in any type of 

Finally, we read the above excerpted portion of Mr. 
Hamilton's statement to LeGrand 's Source. He stated that: none of 
the statements or belief s attributed to him in the statement are 
accurate. More specifically,, he stated that he r never said or 
believed any. of the comments attributed to him,- that he never had 
reason to. believe that any of the Department officials identified 
in the .statement were" involved ; in any wrongdoing or had knowledge 
of any wrongdoing’ by other DOJ officials* and that he never had 
reason' to believe 1 that any documents related to Project Eagle 
were improperly, shredded. i 

The investigation undertaken by the* Special Counsel is 
consistent with much of what LeGrand ' s Source told us. In an 
interview with the Special Counsel and in an earlier sworn 
statement to the ■'Office" of Rrofessional Responsibility* Judge 

- 27 K • 

Jensen denied any effort on his part to injure or bankrupt INSLAW 

or to "engineer" any contract disputes; with the company. Messrs. 


Matthews; Knapp, Johnston, White, j Keeney and Richard all also 
denied having ariy; knowledge of wrongdoing by Judge Jensen or of 


any wrongdoing of the type described in Mr. Hamilton's affidavit. 
(Bua Report 118-120.) - • j- 

2 . Marilyn Jagofo; 

We also interviewed Marilyn Jacobs who, according to Mr. 
Hamilton, told an anonymous informant that Judge Jensen "was the 
main person behind the INSLAW problem. " Ms. Jacobs was Judge 
Jensen's secretary 1 at; the Department of Justice. 

Ms. Jacobs stated that she continues to work for Judge 
Jensen. When ‘Judge Jensen moved to San -Francisco in 1986 
following his appointment to- the U.S. District Court for the 
Northern District of. California , . Ms . i Jacobs also moved to ; 
California to* continue to work for him. v; ; 

Ms. Jacobs stated that the ^information contained in Mr. 


Hamilton's affidavit is false. She said that she never told 
anyone anything about INSLAW while she was at the> ^Department. 
Furthermore, she said that she never told anyone that "Jensen was 
the main person behind the INSLAW problem" - or anything to that 


effect. Nor did she ever tell anyone that his -style was- to 
operate using his subordinates" or anything to i that effect. She 
stated .* that, to 1 ' her knowledge. Judge Jensen was hot involved in 
any wrongdoing with -regard to f INSLAWi ' i 

We are aware that Msv Jacobs' credibility must be viewed in 

- 28 - 

linking Judge Jensen to any 
no reason to doubt her denial 

light of Her continued employment with Judge Jensen. • 
Nevertheless* in light of the failure of Mr. Hamilton's supposed 
source to comie forward despite asshrances by the Attorney General 
and the lack of any dthef evidence 
INSLAW-related conspiracy, we find 
of Mr. Hamilton's allegations. 

3. Jan is: Snosato 4 * V 

-INSliAW inferred from Janis Spbsato's alleged' statement that 
"My management upstairs is unwilling to allow me to make any more 
ooncessiotfs^-^d^l^^lfs^^SposatO'^^lreflnnring^'^td' Judge Jensen and 
that Judge Jeiise'n r was therefore conspiring to ruin INSLAW and 
st ea 1 the**PRGMIS - Software . ? . The only basis ‘for these*' inferences 
appeals to be the’ floor plan of ths main Justice Department 
building; (Ms. ; Sposato was located orcthe first floor of the 
building at that time making nearly all senior management 
"upstairs” from her location.) ! 

Furthermore / even if 'Ms i isposH to made such a statement and 


in fact was referring to Judge Jensen (two propositions which are 

* j 

not supported byi 'the facts )> we fail to see what the relevance of 


such a comment would be. INSLAW and the Department were 
attempting to negotiate a resolution of some of their claims 
against eea^h^d^Bfer-at^tHe time; 1 We would* expect* Her to work with 

, . - ■— v- - — I • — . ... ,'i, : ■. ; . .. 1 

senior 'management as the Department's positions in the 

negotiations wef e formulated. The 

have some interest in the matter in light of the direct request 

: r jvfT- \ ; ■ v 

made by INSLAW's attorneys to Judge Jensen to initiate such 

. D : 

fact that Judge Jensen might 

discussions does not seem unusual. Furthermore, we are not 
surprised that "concessions" to INSLAW during those negotiations 
eventually ceased. 

Nevertheless, we interviewed Ms. Sposato regarding INSLAW's 
allegations. Ms. Sposato stated that she does not recall ever 
making the statement INSLAW has attributed to her and that the 
statement does not sound like something she would say. 
Furthermore, she stated that she never received any direction on 
the negotiations directly from Judge Jensen. However, she did 
occasionally deal with Associate Deputy Attorney General Jay 
Stephens, she stated that, to the best of her knowledge, every 
time Mr. Stephens contacted her with regard to INSLAW it was in 
response to a request from INSLAW. It was her impression that 
Mr. Hamilton would get frustrated with the process and then ask 
his attorney, former Attorney General Elliot Richardson, to 
contact Judge Jensen. Mr. Stephens would inform her when such 
contacts were made. Ms. Sposato stated that neither Mr. Stephens 
nor Judge Jensen ever tried to directly influence the 
negotiations. Rather, it was her impression that they were 
trying to stay away from the discussions. 

C. There Is No Credible Evidence Supporting INSLAW's 

Allegations Regarding a Department of Justice/Earl Brian 

C on spiras yt 

INSLAW's allegations regarding Dr. Earl Brian's involvement 
in a conspiracy with the Department of Justice to steal Enhanced 
PROMIS fall into two categories. First, INSLAW alleges that DOJ 
officials conspired with Dr. Brian, a member of Ronald Reagan's 

gubernatorial cabinet along with former Attorney General Edwin 
Meese, to destroy INSLAW so that Hadron, Inc., a Brian-affiliated 
company, could acquire the rights to PROMIS. This conspiracy was 
allegedly carried out by Hadron and affiliated companies through 
a series of efforts to acquire either PROMIS or INSLAW. The 
second category of allegations provides a different rationale for 
the conspiracy. These allegations maintain that the Justice 
Department's involvement in the conspiracy was based not simply 
on a desire to award a lucrative government contract to an old 
political acquaintance but on a desire to reward Dr. Brian for 
the critical role he played in the October Surprise conspiracy. 

The evidence that INSLAW points to as establishing the 
existence of a Brian/ Justice Department conspiracy consists 
primarily of the following: the fact that Dr. Brian and former 

Attorney General Edwin Meese served together as members of 
Governor Reagan's cabinet in the early 1970s; the testimony of 
Michael Riconosciuto, Ari Ben-Menashe and Charles Hayes; a series 
of suppositions involving the activities of various corporate 
entities; and the alleged statements of certain unnamed sources 
as conveyed by Mr. Hamilton. 

After a thorough review of the Special Counsel's records, 
the House Judiciary Committee records, INSLAW's submissions and 
some additional investigation, we concur in the following 
conclusions of the Special Counsel: 

Our investigation has led us to conclude that Inslaw's 
allegations. of a conspiracy to takeover Inslaw or to "get 
PROMIS" involving Earl Brian and DOJ simply do not withstand 
any level of scrutiny. Those individuals claiming to have 


direct knowledge of this : conspiracy not only. are unworthy of 
belief , but are contradicted by an abundance of believable 
aihd verifiable evidence to the contrary. 

Similarly, the claimed ''circumstantial evidence" of 
such a conspiracy, as outlined by William Hamilton and 
Ins law 1 s lawyers, J fallsi ‘far short of ^ being proof of 
anything. ! 

(Bua Report 121.) These conclusions are in full accord with the 

findings of the Senate Subcommittee that it could find "no proof 

■ \ -V- i'.l ■ \ ~ .• : 

of any connection between Brian or Hadron and the Department with 

. j * ■ "■ ■ ■■. .'2? S. y " ; ■. ! i- Jrj r *.■ n. ■ ;■> ■■ - v 

regard to the INSLAW contract." (Senate Staff Report 30.) 

,t£; lit. ’"it. ’ ' 

i. Michael Riconosciuto 

flKU' ’i.jj., XQ • .. • ■: 

•, > ...*•%■<■ ■ - 

Michael Riconosciuto is the primary source of information 
allegedly linking Dr. Brian to a Conspiracy to steal PROMIS and 

destroy INSLAW. He claims, among 

. . i-oi. -U . ,«rr-»v 

! . ■■ • . v : .... 

Dr. Brian from whom he received a 

personally performed alterations to the software on the Cabazon 

other things: that he met with 

. ■ •$#; .; j . 3 4 ¥ ' ■ , : i * . :t -i» € .' . : ■; :.i t 

copy of PROMIS; that he 

Indian reservation in Indio, California and elsewhere; that the 

software was provided to Dr. Brian as payment for his involvement 

' r> ■ »{>' : .r. 'ZtT^z rW" i ]• ' • .3 • , ; : y; : . ; 

in the October Surprise conspiracy; and that he has personal 

knowledge of the dissemination of 

I ' ■ -J; • I K. - - * >■ 

around the world. 

PROMIS to various entities 

■■■ -tTv. 1 * 1 i„ ,■ ■ 1 r-'t- ; . ; ») 

After an extensive investigation of Mr. Riconosciuto 1 s 

allegations which is chronicled . in his report (Bua Report 42-73) 



- -;,V > .V : ■ ; y.':.T.fv. j 

and supported by the records of the investigation, the Special 

r V.' 3 ! 

f ' tied " n I T POfiXi 

Counsel "found Riconosciuto to be 

connection with the allegations, he has made about the alleged 


theft 1 65THi>ROMlS sbfctWare^ about PROMTS r 

• :f ;f Of- >. I’H; «ftk o.njLVl.r?vhl ; :-uS 

reminds* us of a historical 


a totally unreliable witness in 

a tale df 1 total ? fictibn woven 


against the background of accurate historical facts." (Bua Report 
72. ) 6 ■ • , , ■* 

; This’ conclusion was based on inconsistencies in Mr. 

Riconosc iuto ' s var ious statements, regarding Dr . ? Brian 1 s 
involvement f id. 42-53) /the absence of any documentary evidence 
corroborating any aspect of Mr. Riconosciuto's ^claims despite his 
repeated assurances that such evidence existed and ; that he would 
provide. the sane to investigators f id. 68-71) 7 , and the failure 

of any of then witnesses interviewed by the Special Counsel to 
corroborate any of his allegations regarding Dr. Brian, f id. 53- 
66.) None of the individuals interviewed by the Special Counsel, 
as a> result of Mr*;, Riconosciuto's statements — Peter Zokosky, A. 
Robert Frye, John Philip Nichols, , Peter Videnieks, .Earl Brian, 

Material banned Poiw»ot 

Art Welmas, Sam Cross, wiuiU^ofFed.R- Dave Baird,, Wayne Reeder, 

Crist- Iw. 

Scott Westley' and several others — were able to corroborate any 
of his allegations of { a conspiracy.. (See Bua Report 53-66. ) 

6 The« Investigative Report of the House .Committee on the 
Judiciary did not express an opinion about Mr. Ricorisociuto's 
credibility* -H.qwevor, .it does no^e that he "could not, provide . , 
evidence other than his eyewitness account that Dr. Brian was 
invc&ved xin tthe ^PROMTS scoi^ea^si^j^t thes»res^rvation. ", . (House 
Report 72.) In light of Dr. Brian's denial of Mr'." Riconosciuto's 
charges ,• , .rthe^ iftommijttse.e concluded that; it, -was "nothin, a position 
to make findings of fact on Dr. Brian's role, bVt would strongly 
recommend'' further ^investigation . -- f id. ) , Vl . ; , { . 

■a. 7 i There .was one document ref erred- to , in,. the House Report: a 

Riverside, California police report indicating tliat Dr. Brian was 
present .^at ra < efeaoti^g ^demonstration Indio , pal if ornia in 

September 1981. As reflected in the Special (Counsel's report, 
the document was ^prepared . : in October 1991 , ten years ,efter the . 
event it describes, and was based! almost solely on statements 
provided i to ithe/lliyersidexpolice by-Mr. Riconosc iuto in October 
1991. (Bua Report 61 - 66 .) 

•J. 1 ’ 

The conclusion is further supported by the finding of the 
Congressional Task Force to Investigate Certain Allegations 
Concerning the Hbldihg of -Arier i'can Hostages by Iran in 1980 that 
there is no credible evid§nd6 is supporting the basic premise of. Mr. 

s a 

s§ That is* the Congressional Task 

Force found' no credible'' evidence , 

dur ing* a year long 

investigation , * Of ' any attempt 1 by the Reagan presidential * campaign 
or persons ‘associated with the campaign to delay the release of 


the Abeticah hosta%feS in Iran 1 during the 1980 catapaign* (Joint 
Report oi the 1 Task Force to' Investigate Certain! Allegations 

n Hostages by Iran - in 1980 


Report"} , Jan. 3, 1923, p. 5.)- If 
supporting the existence of an ^ 
jonbsdiuto's claims that the 
Reagan Administration entered into a conspiracy With Dr. Brian in 
order to reward him’f Or his involvement in the OCtober^Surprise 


conspiracy are obviously called into question. 

Concerning the Holding 6ft AMi&icaf 
( "October SurprS'&e' TaSk 
there iS no credible 
October Surf>r i seP bon spir acy , ' Mr . 

Finally, it should be noted 

/ A- ; • v'-T? i. . Tri. r *. t; ; 

INS IJ^W-'r'eidt ed cla t ibi , havfe already' been heard and -rejected -by a 


federal Oburt . '2 c l’n‘ 

■ ! "f C v ; 

1 *7 

V Mr . 

that many of Mr. RieOnoseiuto • s 

-tM r 

on dTUg charges arising 3 from bis 



and "convicted 


methamphetamine . (His involvement with i drugs dates at ile'Sst back 

to" 19 7 2 When h e l Was^ bonvict ed e bn 

*?.» ti-i . tWfr- p'S ■> ' ; •; -• .J 

to 30 


' ;t 

- l ii l . • *.* • 

f L ’ 


he was 

gove^ahent effort to keep the truth about the I-NSLAW bf fair from 

PCP charges.) s He Was sentenced 

7 ; j '-rv .* * i { 

Mr/ unsuccessf ully defended %imsel*f- 

&£ , l ^ r 

as >artOf S '. 

i. n -t" . 

- 3j4 — 

becoming public. 1 During the sentencing hearing, U.S. District 
Court Judge Robert J. Bryan spoke to Mr. Riconosciuto about his 

I think you have a loose connection with the 
truth, and I think all these things we have 
heard about over the course of this 
proceeding it [sic] is very hard to determine 
what is truth and what is fiction, and I'm 
not at all satisfied that you know the 
difference yourself in regard to a lot of the 
things that have been discussed. 

( United States v. Riconosciuto . No. CR91-1034B (W.D. Wash.), 

transcript of Sentencing Hearing, May 7, 1992, pp. 37-38.) The 

Court arrived at the same assessment of his credibility as the 

Senate investigators, Judge Bua and this report. 

In its Analysis and Rebuttal of the Bua Report, INSLAW 
argues that Mr. Riconosciuto' s statements are not necessarily in 
conflict, that certain of the witnesses interviewed by the 
Special Counsel with intelligence backgrounds cannot be expected 
to tell the truth unless put under oath, and that the credibility 
of certain witnesses is called into question in light of various 
charges made against those witnesses. (INSLAW Rebuttal 49-54.) 
After carefully considering INSLAW's comments and acknowledging 
that the assessment of the credibility of certain witnesses must 
take into account their previous or current troubles with law 
enforcement authorities, we continue to find Mr. Riconosciuto to 

* As noted in the Special Counsel's report, "[T]he evidence 
against Riconosciuto at trial was overwhelming. The DEA in that 
case captured Riconosciuto delivering methamphetamine on 
videotape on more than one occasion. The testimony also 
established that Riconosciuto was running a large methamphetamine 
lab at the property where he was living." (Bua Report 67.) 


be a wholly unreliable witness. 

2 . Ari Ben-Menashe 

The second major source of information linking Dr. Brian to 
a conspiracy with Department of Justice officials and others to 
steal and then distribute internationally INSLAW's PROMIS 
software is Ari Ben-Menashe, who claims to be a former high-level 
Israeli intelligence officer. In 1992, Mr. Ben-Menashe published 
a book, Profits of War? Inside the Secret U.S. - Israel Arms 
Network (Sheridan Square Press, New York 1992), detailing his 
alleged involvement in various covert operations, including the 
October Surprise, arms sales to Iraq, the Iran Contra affair and 
others. In that book and in various statements he has made, Mr. 
Ben-Menashe claims to have first-hand knowledge that Dr. Brian 
and Robert McFarlane, the former National Security Adviser, 
provided Enhanced PROMIS to Israel. He claims to have either 
first or second hand information concerning the sale of PROMIS to 
the Singapore Armed Forces, Jordanian military intelligence 
organizations, Iraq, the Soviet Union and Canada. (See, e.a. . 
House Report 64.) Mr. Ben-Menashe also claims that certain 
Israeli officials would be able to corroborate his allegations 
although he refuses to identify those officials. 

Despite the concerns raised by INSLAW regarding the 
credibility of Dr. Brian's and of Mr. McFarlane' s denials of Mr. 
Ben-Menashe 1 s allegations, we concur with the Special Counsel's 
conclusion that Mr. Ben-Menashe ' s "testimony offers no support 
for the allegation that DOJ and Earl Brian conspired to steal and 


distribute the software in which Inslaw claims proprietary 
rights.” (Bua Report 81.) We base this concurrence primarily on 
the factors identified below as well as on the other factors 
identified in the Special Counsel's report. 

First . Mr. Ben-Menashe ' s credibility has already been called 
into serious question by two congressional investigations. The 
October Surprise Task Force, led by Chairman Lee H. Hamilton and 
Congressman Henry J. Hyde, conducted a thorough investigation of 
the allegations that the Reagan campaign acted to delay the 
release of American hostages held in Iran until after the 1980 
election. The Joint Report of the October Surprise Task Force 
reached the following conclusions about Mr. Ben-Menashe 1 s 
allegations concerning the alleged October Surprise conspiracy, 
many of which also form the basis of his INSLAW testimony: 

Credible testimonial and documentary evidence show Ben- 
Menashe to be totally lacking in credibility regarding his 
allegations about meetings in Spain in 1980 ... Aside from 
early biographical details, virtually everything Ben-Menashe 
told the Task Force has been found to be false, (p. 97. ) 9 

According to numerous pieces of documentary evidence, 
Ben-Menashe ' s account is demonstrably false from beginning 
to end. (p. 110.) 

Ben-Menashe ' s testimony is impeached by documents and 
is riddled with inconsistencies and factual misstatements 
which undermine his credibility. Based on the documentary 
evidence available, the Task Force has determined that Ben- 

9 Among the facts that the Task Force found to be false was 
the existence of a relationship between Mr. Ben-Menashe and Rafi 
Eitan. The report indicates that Mr. Eitan claims he does not 
know Mr. Ben-Menashe and has never met him. f id. 97.) This is of 
particular relevance to the INSLAW allegations as Mr. Ben-Menashe 
claims that Mr. Eitan provided much of his information to him and 
that Mr. Eitan was a key player in the misappropriation of 


Menashe's account of the October meetings, like his other 
October Surprise allegations, is a total fabrication, (p. 
148 . ) 

The Task Force also concluded, "There is no credible evidence 
supporting any attempt, or proposal to attempt, by the Reagan 
Presidential Campaign — or persons representing or associated 
with the campaign — to delay the release of the American 
hostages in Iran." (October Surprise Task Force Report 8.) 

The Special Counsel appointed by the Subcommittee on Near 
Eastern and South Asian Affairs of the Senate Committee on 
Foreign Relations to investigate the October Surprise 
allegations, Reid H. Weingarten, reached similar conclusions 
regarding Mr. Ben-Menashe* s credibility. In his report, he 

The primary sources for this allegation — Brenneke, 

Ben Menashe, and Lavi — have proven wholly unreliable. 

Their claims regarding alleged secret meetings are riddled 
with inconsistencies, and have been contradicted by 
irrefutable documentary evidence as well as by the testimony 
of vastly more credible witnesses. Not one aspect of Ben- 
Menashe's story, which alleges a series of meetings in 
Madrid, Amsterdam, Paris and Washington in furtherance of an 
"October Surprise" conspiracy promoted by Israel, was ever 
corroborated ... In sum, the Special Counsel found that by 
any standard, the credible evidence now known falls far 
short of supporting the allegation of an agreement between 
the Reagan campaign and Iran to delay the release of the 
hostages . 

(The "October Surprise" Allegations and the Circumstances 
Surrounding the Release of the American Hostages Held in Iran, 
Report of the Special Counsel, November 19, 1992, pp. 114-115.) 
Second . 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 


Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 


Material omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R- Crim. Proc. 


10 The description of the contract dispute between INSLAW 
and the Department of Justice contained in Mr. Ben-Menashe * s book 
is demonstrably false. For example, Mr. Ben-Menashe writes, 
"Hamilton and his wife Nancy sued the Justice Department, 
charging that Justice stole the enhanced PROMIS program from 
INSLAW and gave it to NSA. Justice claimed it did get a program 
from INSLAW but returned it unused." Profits of War , p. 131. 
Furthermore, his description of the power of the PROMIS program 
as "Big Brother-like" and a "monster" does not comport with 
reality. He describes the use of the software as follows: 

Using a modem, the spy network would then tap into the 
computers of such services as the telephone company, the 
water board, other utility commissions, credit card 
companies, etc. PROMIS would then search for specific 
information. For example, if a person suddenly started 
using more water and more electricity and making more phone 
calls than usual, it might be suspected he had guests 
staying with him. PROMIS would then start searching for the 
records of his friends and associates, and if it was found 
that one had stopped using electricity and water, it might 
be assumed, based on other records stored in PROMIS, that 
the missing person was staying with the subject of the 
investigation. This would be enough to have him watched if, 
for example, he had been involved in previous conspiracies. 

( Profits of War 131-132.) PROMIS is a case tracking software 
program used to index relevant information on pending cases. The 
suggestion that it could be used to "'keep track of everyone'" is 


Fourth . neither the House investigation nor the Special 
Counsel's investigation was able to uncover any credible evidence 
corroborating any aspects of Mr. Ben-Menashe ' s story. Mr. Ben- 
Menashe repeatedly promised House investigators that he would 
provide documentary evidence relating to the sale of PROMIS 
software and demonstrating the participation of Dr. Brian in 
those sales. He failed to produce any such documents or any 
corroborating witnesses. Finally, during his sworn statement to 
House investigators, he stated that he would not make that 
documentation available or identify those witnesses until he was 
"called as an official witness." He proved to be equally 
unforthcoming with the Special Counsel. Although the Special 
Counsel subpoenaed the relevant records in Mr. Ben-Menashe ' s 
possession, he never produced any documents. (Bua Report 78.) 

In light of these factors, there is no reason to give any 
weight to Mr. Ben-Menashe' s allegations. 

3 . Charles Haves 

INSLAW also relies heavily on the statements of Charles 
Hayes, a Kentucky salvage dealer who claims to have purchased 
word processing equipment that contained Enhanced PROMIS from a 
local United States Attorney's office. He also "previously told 
Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton that he met with Earl Brian, Richard Secord 
and Oliver North in Sao Paulo, Brazil, in the mid-1980's while 
those three individuals were purchasing weapons for the Contras 
in Nicaragua, and Brian was marketing INSLAW's PROMIS software to 

patently absurd. 


;he government of Brazil." (INSLAW Rebuttal 55.)" 
The Special Counsel concluded as follows: 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

(Bua Report 85.) Mr. Hayes had also failed to provide any 
documentation corroborating his allegations to House 
investigators. (House Report 66.) 

INSLAW, which has not had the benefit of reviewing Mr. 

Hayes' grand jury testimony, is critical of the Special Counsel's 
conclusions based in large part on a statement allegedly signed 
by Mr. Hayes regarding the content of his grand jury testimony. 
After carefully reviewing Mr. Hayes' sworn statements to the 
Special Counsel's grand jury and to House investigators as well 
as the Special Counsel's analysis and INSLAW's rebuttal, we 
concur with the findings of the Special Counsel. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 


4 . Circumstantial Evidence of a Conspiracy 

In addition to the witnesses identified above, INSLAW points 
to a series of events involving various corporate entities and 
their principals as evidence of a conspiracy involving Dr. Brian 
and Justice Department officials to steal the PROMIS software. 
These allegations, which are set forth in detail in Mr. 

Hamilton's December 22, 1989 affidavit, can be summarized as 

(1) Starting in 1983, Hadron, Inc., a company owned by Dr. 
Brian, attempted to obtain the PROMIS software through a variety 
of different strategies. Mr. Hamilton identifies two alleged 
acts that directly involve Hadron as proof of its involvement in 
this alleged conspiracy. First, Mr. Hamilton claims that he 
received a telephone call from Dominic Laiti, chairman of Hadron, 
shortly after Modification 12 to the PROMIS contract was agreed 
to in which Mr. Laiti inquired as to whether INSLAW was 
interested in selling its rights to PROMIS. Among other things, 
Mr. Hamilton claims, "When I declined to meet with Laiti to 
discuss his proposition, Laiti said: 'We have ways of making you 
sell.'" (Hamilton 12/22/89 Decl. 8.) Second, Mr. Hamilton 
alleges that a 1983 trip to New York involving various Hadron 
officials was for the purpose of raising funds to acquire PROMIS. 

(2) Mr. Hamilton alleges that individuals involved with 
53rd Street Ventures, a New York venture capital fund with a 
small equity interest in INSLAW, were attempting to acquire 
INSLAW or PROMIS on behalf of individuals with "ties at the 


highest level of the Reagan Administration.” (Hamilton 12/22/89 
Decl. 13.) These assertions are based largely on Mr. Hamilton's 
account of two conversations he allegedly had, one with Jonathan 
Ben Cnaan, an account executive for the fund, and the other with 
Daniel Tessler, the chairman of the company that managed the 

(3) Mr. Hamilton also alleges that the Justice Department 
encouraged a 1986 hostile takeover bid initiated by Systems and 
Computer Technology, Inc. ("SCT") "in order to preclude INSLAW 
from seeking redress in the courts for DOJ's 1983 theft of the 
PROMIS software and to remove INSLAW as an obstacle to the 
planned award of Project EAGLE to Tisoft and the planned 
implementation of PROMIS on the Project EAGLE computers." (INSLAW 
Rebuttal 61.) 12 

The Special Counsel spent a considerable amount of time 
investigating these allegations. He summarized the results of 
that effort as follows: 

We tried to interview virtually all of the witnesses 
identified in Mr. Hamilton's affidavit and in the memoranda 
submitted by Inslaw's lawyers as supporting these claims. 

As is described in detail in the following pages, we found 
that many of the witnesses deny making the statements 
attributed to them by Mr. Hamilton. In other cases, the 
individuals confirmed the particular statements attributed 
to them, but then admitted that they were only repeating 
things that other people had told them. In the end, we 
found that much of the supposed "circumstantial evidence" 
identified by INSLAW does not in fact exist, and that what 

12 INSLAW and Mr. Hamilton make additional allegations 
involving Edward Hurley, a Hadron vice president, and a contract 
award to a Hadron subsidiary. These charges are fully and 
adequately addressed in the Special Counsel's report and do not 
warrant additional comment here. (See Bua Report 98-101.) 


does exist is woefully insufficient to support a finding of 
a conspiracy, or, indeed, any connection between INSLAW and 
PROMIS on the one hand, and Hadron or Earl Brian on the 

(Bua Report 86.) 

(a) Evidence of Direct Hadron Involvement 
The two individuals identified by Mr. Hamilton — Paul 
Wormeli and Marilyn Titus — as the source of his information 
regarding the 1983 fundraising trip to New York informed the 
Special Counsel that they have no reason to believe that the 
purpose of the trip was to raise funds to purchase PROMIS as 
alleged by Mr. Hamilton. ( See Bua Report 88-90.) Mr. Hamilton 
stated in his affidavit that Ms. Titus, a secretary to Mr. 
Wormeli, had informed him that the "purpose of the trip was to 
•raise capital for the court f i. e. , PROMIS] software.'" (Hamilton 
12/22/89 Decl. 13.) However, Ms. Titus informed the Special 
Counsel that she "had never heard any discussion at all about 
Hadron obtaining PROMIS software, and she does not believe that 
she ever told William Hamilton that the purpose of the 1983 fund 
raising trip was to raise capital to obtain PROMIS or Inslaw." 
(Bua Report 90.) 

Furthermore, Mark Kesselman (with whom Mr. Laiti and Mr. 
Wormeli met during their trip to New York) was unable to support 
Mr. Hamilton's charges. Mr. Laiti informed the Special Counsel 
that the 1983 New York trip had nothing to do with acquiring 
INSLAW or PROMIS and that he had no recollection of any efforts 
to acquire either the company or the software. He also stated 
that he did not recall ever talking to Mr. Hamilton, let alone 


threatening him. Dr. Brian also denied any knowledge of any 
effort by Hadron to acquire INSLAW. Finally, Donald Stromberg, a 
former president of Simeon, informed Senate investigators that he 
never heard mention of either INSLAW or Mr. Hamilton while he was 
at Simeon. (Senate staff Report 30.) 

in light of the fact that the only "evidence” of a direct 
involvement by Hadron or its principals in an alleged conspiracy 
is Mr. Hamilton's sworn affidavit and that the alleged sources of 
the information reflected in that affidavit have disavowed its 
accuracy, we concur with the finding of the Senate staff that 
there is "no proof that officials of Hadron, Inc. were involved 
in a conspiracy with officials of the Department of Justice to 
undermine INSLAW in order to acquire its assets." (Senate Staff 
Report 28 . ) 

(b) 53rd Street Ventures 

INSLAW is particularly critical of the special Counsel's 
conclusions regarding the alleged involvement of 53rd Street 
Ventures in an effort to acquire INSLAW. INSLAW's criticisms 
focus on the Special Counsel's failure to interview Jonathan Ben 
Cnaan and the Special Counsel's willingness to accept the unsworn 
statements of Daniel Tessler, the chairmen of 53rd Street 
Ventures; Patricia Cloherty, Mr. Tessler 's wife; and Richard 
D'Amore, a partner at Hambro international, another venture 
capital firm; over Mr. Hamilton's sworn testimony. 

According to Mr. Hamilton's affidavit: 

Jonathan Ben Cnaan, an account executive with 53rd street 

Ventures, a New York City venture capital firm that then had 


a small equity investment in INSLAW, described a meeting in 
September 1983 at 53rd Street Ventures with a "businessman 
with ties at the highest level of the Reagan Administration" 
who was eager to obtain the PROMIS software for use in 
federal government work. The meeting took place several 
months after the contract disputes with DOJ had emerged, and 
the businessman assured 53rd Street Ventures that INSLAW 
would never be able to resolve them. According to Ben 
Cnaan, the businessman was annoyed that I had rebuffed an 
attempt earlier that year to buy INSLAW in order to obtain 
title to the PROMIS software. 

(Hamilton 12/22/89 Decl. 13.) Despite efforts made by the 
Special Counsel, he was not able to locate Mr. Ben Cnaan. (Bua 
Report 97-98.) 

With the aid of INSLAW and an Israeli journalist, we were 
able to locate Mr. Ben Cnaan in Israel. We interviewed him by 

Mr. Ben Cnaan, a native of Israel, stated that he was 
employed by Allen Patricof and Associates ("APA") in New York 
from 1981 to 1987. 53rd Street Ventures was one of the venture 
funds which he helped to manage while at APA. He stated that the 
first investment he made for APA was a $100,000 investment in 
INSLAW. He said that he was a "follower" investor and did not 
take an active role in the negotiation of the deal. 

Mr. Ben Cnaan stated that he never met with anyone with ties 
to high level officials of the Reagan Administration and that he 
never had any conversation with anyone regarding the government's 
alleged desire to obtain PROMIS. Furthermore, he stated that he 
had no reason to believe that the federal government had any 
desire to obtain the PROMIS software. He also said that he had 
no recollection of any of the events described in the above- 


excerpted paragraph from Mr. Hamilton's declaration. Mr. Ben 
Cnaan denied that anyone ever told him that INSLAW would be 
unable to resolve its conflicts with the government. He also 
denied that he was ever told that someone was annoyed that Mr. 
Hamilton had rebuffed an earlier attempt to purchase INSLAW. 

Mr. Ben Cnaan called the allegations contained in Mr. 
Hamilton's declaration ''fabrications' 1 and the result of a 
"creative imagination." 

Mr. Hamilton also claims that Mr. Tessler attempted to 
coerce him into turning over control of INSLAW and that his wife, 
Patricia Cloherty, informed Mr. D'Amore that she "knew all about" 
Dr. Brian's role in the INSLAW matter. (Hamilton 12/22/89 Decl. 
13-14.) He also asserts that Daniel Tessler is a relative of 
Alan Tessler, an attorney responsible for the mergers and 
acquisition work of Dr. Brian and Hadron. Mr. Tessler, Ms. 
Cloherty and Mr. D'Amore all denied these accusations during 
interviews with the Special Counsel. (Bua Report 91-96.) Mr. 
Tessler also stated that he was not related to Alan Tessler. 

Nevertheless, INSLAW argues that these individuals are not 
credible. Specifically, INSLAW asserts that Mr. Tessler 's 
statement that "to his knowledge, his wife, Patricia Cloherty, 
has no knowledge of Earl Brian" and Ms. Cloherty 's subsequent 
statement that she once served on the board of the National 
Association of Small Business Investment Companies with Dr. Brian 
indicate their lack of trustworthiness. (INSLAW Rebuttal 58.) 

We disagree. We do not find it particularly unusual that an 


individual would not know all the business associates of his or 
her spouse. Furthermore, even if Mr. Hamilton's statements are 
true, it would not connect either Dr. Brian or Hadron to any 
wrongdoing in connection with INSLAW or PROMIS. 

(c) Systems and Computer Technology. Inc. f'SCT'M 
The Special Counsel reviewed in detail the events 
surrounding a 1986 effort by SCT to purchase INSLAW from the 
Hamiltons. (Bua Report 104-106.) A review of the Special 
Counsel's report and the memoranda memorializing interviews 
conducted with key SCT officials reveals that none of those 
involved with the attempted purchase were aware of any connection 
between either the Justice Department or Dr. Brian, on the one 
hand, and SCT's efforts to purchase INSLAW, on the other. 

Nevertheless, INSLAW continues to assert that SCT was acting 
in union with Dr. Brian and the Department when it approached 
INSLAW. However, the "support" for this accusation contained in 
INSLAW's Rebuttal is nothing more than a series of 
unsubstantiated beliefs which INSLAW does not even attempt to 
corroborate : 

INSLAW believes that the PROMIS software was intended 
by DOJ to be the uniform case management software for the 
Project EAGLE computers. INSLAW further believes that Earl 
Brian's Hadron, Inc. was originally slated to receive the 
Project EAGLE contract award by DOJ as a sweetheart gift 
from Brian's long-time friend, then Attorney General Meese. 
INSLAW believes that Brian and DOJ abandoned the plan to use 
Hadron as the vehicle for the contract in the fall of 1985, 
following the failure of the covert DOJ effort to force 
INSLAW's liquidation. 

INSLAW believes that, by January 1986, Brian and DOJ 
had substituted Tisoft, Inc. as the vehicle for the planned 
sweetheart Project EAGLE award. That month, Tisoft was 


awarded a $30 million computer systems contract by Meese's 
Justice Department, and Tisoft amended its articles of 
incorporation to permit the sale of common stock to new 
outside owners who would then have majority control of the 
company . 

Margaret Wiencek, the former Director of Administrative 
Services at Earl Brian's Financial News Network (FNN) , 
claims that Patrick R. Gallagher of Tisoft, Inc. was also 
someone who regularly telephoned the chairman's office at 
Earl Brian's FNN Headquarters in Los Angeles during at least 

INSLAW believes that DOJ encouraged the SCT hostile 
takeover bid for INSLAW in 1986 in order to preclude INSLAW 
from seeking redress in the courts for DOJ's 1983 theft of 
PROMIS software and to remove INSLAW as an obstacle to the 
planned award of Project EAGLE to Tisoft and the planned 
implementation of PROMIS on the Project EAGLE computers. 

(INSLAW Rebuttal 60-61 [emphasis added].) This is pure 

conjecture on the part of INSLAW. 

Furthermore, House investigators interviewed several 

individuals involved with the EAGLE contract to determine if 

there was any link with INSLAW of the type alleged by INSLAW. 

Based upon our review of those interviews, there is no 

substantial evidence suggesting such a link. Similarly, the 

report of the Senate staff study "found no proof that INSLAW's 

problems with the Department were connected to the Department ' s 

•Project EAGLE' procurement." (Senate Staff Report 31.) 

5. John A. Belton 

In its Analysis and Rebuttal of the Bua Report, INSLAW is 
critical of the Special Counsel for failing to interview John A. 
Belton, a former Canadian stockbroker, who has apparently been 
investigating the alleged illegal distribution of PROMIS in 
Canada and the role of Dr. Brian and Hadron in that distribution. 


According to INSLAW, the June 10, 1993 memorandum from Mr. Belton 
to Mr. Hamilton, which is attached as Exhibit A to INSLAW's 
Rebuttal, ''documents the existence of a business relationship 
between Earl Brian's Hadron, Inc., and two Canadian computer 
services companies on a large [PROMIS] software sale to the 
Government of Canada in 1983." (INSLAW Rebuttal 38.) 

We spoke with Mr. Belton by telephone. According to Mr. 
Belton he was employed by Nesbitt, Thomson, Bongard, Inc. 

("NTB"), a Canadian investment bank, from 1968 to February 26, 
1982. He stated that he left NTB in 1982 following his 
discovery that NTB was involved in securities fraud with Dr. 

Brian and others. He has subsequently filed two suits against 
NTB, both of which are still pending. The suits apparently focus 
on the alleged securities fraud and include a claim for 
constructive dismissal. Mr. Belton stated that both suits should 
be settled shortly. Since leaving NTB, he has spent a majority 
of his time investigating his claims and prosecuting his cases. 

Mr. Belton stated that he was aware of several sales of 
PROMIS to various entities by Dr. Brian or others involved in the 
"intelligence community." He stated that Dr. Brian was 
responsible for selling the "U.S. version" of the software 
through Hadron, Inc. , while Robert Maxwell, the late British 
publisher, was responsible for selling the "Israeli version" of 
the software. According to Mr. Belton, Dominic Laiti, the 
president of Hadron, Inc., is a full-time employee of the Central 
Intelligence Agency, and Hadron was a CIA "cut-out." He also 


claims that Janos Pasztor, vice-president of NTB, was a CIA 
agent. "Reliable sources" also allegedly informed Mr. Belton 
that Dr. Brian has acted as an agent of the National Security 

Mr. Belton alleges that Dr. Brian and an NTB official sold 
PROMIS to the Bank of Montreal for $2 million in May 1987. He 
stated that he has first-hand knowledge of this sale although he 
refused to explain how he came to have that knowledge. Mr. 

Belton also claimed to have a document that reflects the sale; 
however, he said that he would not provide that document to 
anyone at this time. He stated he feels that he should not 
release any documents or further information about this sale 
until after his lawsuits have been settled. 

Mr. Belton also claims that a sale of PROMIS was made to a 
Nuclear Regulatory Commission facility in New Mexico in 1983. He 
believes the facility was Los Alamos. According to Mr. Belton, 
the sale was made by Trans World Arms in Montreal and ORA. ORA 
is allegedly the Israeli half of a multi-billion dollar slush 
fund made up of Israeli and U.S. funds. Mr. Belton stated that 
the fund has been used, among other things, to fund arm sales to 
Iraq. He stated that his primary source of information 
concerning this sale was Mr. Hamilton. However, he claims that 
he confirmed Mr. Hamilton's allegations with a "very, very 
reliable source." He refused to identify that source. 

Mr. Belton alleges that this same source informed him that 
the Canadian security Intelligence Service purchased $10 to 12 


million worth of PROMIS software in 1984. Again, he refused to 
identify the source or to provide any additional evidence of such 
a sale. 

During our conversation, Mr. Belton claimed to have 
information about other sales of the PROMIS software. However, 
he was unable to supply any potentially corroborating information 
with respect to any of those alleged sales. He also claimed that 
he learned from a reliable source that former President George 
Bush put NTB and the Bank of Montreal under CIA control in 1976 
while Bush was the Director of the CIA. He also claims that he 
is in the process of negotiating the return of $590 million to 
the pensioners of Mirror Newspapers in London. Mr. Belton also 
claims to have reliable information regarding conspiracies 
involving Robert Maxwell, Iraqi arm sales, Iranian arm sales and 
the October Surprise. 

We found Mr. Belton to be unbelievable. He merely made a 
number of accusations based on unnamed "reliable" witnesses while 
refusing to identify those sources or provide any documentary 
support for those allegations. His claim that such documents 
exist but that he does not want to release them to us detracts 
rather than adds to the credibility of his allegations. 
Furthermore, he seemed to be a man dedicated to prevailing on his 
suits against his former employers. 

6. The Alleged Videnieks /Hadron Connection 

INSLAW has also asserted that the Justice Department's 
contracting officer, Peter Videnieks, had a relationship with 


Hadron, Inc. , and its officers and asserts that relationship as 
further evidence of a conspiracy involving Dr. Brian and the 
Department. INSLAW's allegations have centered on the statements 
of two individuals. First . INSLAW focuses on the statements of 
John Schoolmeester , a former Customs Service employee. Mr. 
Schoolmeester asserts that when Mr. Videnieks was employed at 
Customs prior to moving to the Department of Justice, he handled 
some contracts between Customs and Hadron. Mr. Schoolmeester 
informed the Special Counsel that Mr. Videnieks almost certainly 
would have met Dominic Laiti, Hadron's president, around that 
time as Mr. Laiti "met everyone in government." in light of Mr. 
Schoolmeester ' s admission that he has no first-hand knowledge 
that Mr. Laiti and Mr. Videnieks ever met, the investigation 
conducted by the Special Counsel and a review of Mr. 

Schoolmeester ' s 1991 statement to House investigators, we concur 
with the Special Counsel's conclusion that this allegation "falls 
far short of anything that could fairly be called evidence of a 
conspiracy." (Bua Report 104.) 

Second . INSLAW points to the sworn statement of Margaret 
Wiencek, a former employee of Dr. Brian's Financial News Network, 
obtained by investigators for the U.S. Customs Service Internal 
Affairs Division in February 1993. In that statement, Ms. 

Wiencek states: 

4. Peter Vedinecks [sic] and Michael Riconisuitto [sic] 

(as I am unaware of the proper spelling of these 
individuals' names, I have spelled them phonetically as I 
would have done on any phone log when uncertain of the 
spellings of names) were individuals who made several phone 
calls to FNN during the first quarter of 1987 asking for Mr. 


Bolen [FNN's chief financial officer] and/or Dr. Brian and 
leaving messages for Mr. Bolen and/or Dr. Brian requesting 
that Mr. Bolen and/or Dr. Brian return calls... 

5. In the course of my official duties, I became aware of 
a file in Mr. Bolen's office marked M.I.S. that contained 
copies of correspondence relating to the PROMIS computer 
software product. Dominic Laiti, then CEO of Hadron, Inc., 
a company controlled by Dr. Earl W. Brian through 
Infotechnology , Inc. was either the author or recipient of 
the letters in question in this file. . . 

(Wiencek, 2/7/93 p.l.) It is unclear whether the Special Counsel 

investigated these allegations. 

Our investigation, however, has identified several factors 

that cast doubt on Ms. Wiencek 's credibility. First, Ms. Wiencek 

has filed suit against Dr. Brian and FNN charging, among other 

things, that she was improperly discharged from her position with 

FNN in 1990 as a result of her refusal to participate in 

wrongdoing taking place at FNN. Ms. Wiencek stated that she has 

been laid off from several jobs since 1990 and is currently 

unemployed. She is representing herself in the litigation. 

Second , 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 


Third, the customs Service Internal Affairs Division has 
indicated their intention to close their two-year investigation 
into allegations that Peter Videnieks committed perjury at the 
trial of Michael Riconosciuto when he testified that he did not 
know Dr. Brian due to a lack of credible evidence supporting 
those allegations. 13 According to Customs Service investigators, 
the investigation was initiated as the result of information 
received by an informant. The informant alleged that Mr. 
Videnieks committed perjury when he denied knowing Dr. Brian and 
others during the trial of Mr. Riconosciuto on drug charges. Mr. 
Riconosciuto unsuccessfully defended himself in that litigation 
by claiming that he was framed by the government as part of a 
greater iNSLAW-related conspiracy. Due to the fact that Mr. 
Videnieks had returned to Customs after leaving the Justice 
Department and was a Customs employee at the time he testified at 
trial the anonymous charges against Mr. Videnieks were 
investigated by Customs Service internal Affairs . Despite Ms. 
Wiencek's signed statement, the Customs Service investigators 
concluded, after what they described as an extensive 
investigation, that there was no credible evidence that Mr. 
Videnieks committed perjury when he denied knowing Dr. Brian. 
Despite promises by Mr. Riconosciuto and his former girlfriend to 

13 The Customs Service's intention to close the investigation 
was conveyed to us in a telephone conversation with Customs 
Service Office of Internal Affairs Regional Director William 
Rohde and Deputy Director John Kelly on March 30, 1993. 

According to Mr. Rohde, his office intends to prepare a detailed 
report of their investigation over the next few months. 


Customs investigators that they would provide physical proof that 
Mr. Videnieks and Dr. Brian knew each other, they failed to 
produce any such evidence. 14 

And fourth, Ms. Wiencek contradicted two important details 
contained in her written statements and in her sworn statement to 
House investigators during an interview pursuant to this review. 
During that interview, Ms. Wiencek stated that while she was 
organizing files at FNN she discovered an unlabelled file that 
contained promotional material regarding a software program 
called PROMIS. She then went on to state that she put the 
material in another file and labelled it "MIS" as she understood 
the PROMIS software to be a management information system. We 
asked her several times whether the file was labelled at the time 
she found it, and on each occasion she stated that the file was 
unlabelled and that she was the one to label it "MIS." In both 
her signed statement to Customs investigators and her sworn 
statement to House investigators, Ms. Wiencek stated that the 
file was already marked "MIS" when she found it. 

The second inconsistency involves her testimony concerning 
the contents of that file. During our interview, Ms. Wiencek 

14 Assistant United States Attorney Marc Bartlett was the 
lead prosecutor in the case against Mr. Riconosciuto. Mr. 
Bartlett informed us that he believed Mr. Videnieks' testimony 
during the trial was truthful. In the government's Sentencing 
Memorandum, it stated the following: "Regardless of the cause, 
the [Riconosciuto 's] lies have wreaked havoc on numerous fronts. 
At an individual level, people such as Peter Viedinicks [sic] 
whose names were included in the defendant's seamless web of lies 
and paranoia have suffered countless personal and professional 
problems." United States v. Riconosciuto . No. CR91-1034B (W.D. 
Wash.), Government's Sentencing Memorandum, April 29, 1992, p. 3. 


stated that there were two to four letters included with the 
promotional material in the file. She stated that one letter 
appeared to be from the federal government as she recalls seeing 
"United States Government" at the top of the letter. The only 
other letter she specifically recalled was one that she believed 
was from Hadron, Inc. She specifically stated that the letter 
did not have any other names on it and that the letter was not 
from Dominic Laiti. She also stated that she did not recall 
seeing any letter in the file with Mr. Laiti' s name on it. 
However, in her statements to House investigators and to Customs 
investigators, Ms. Wiencek stated that Mr. Laiti was either the 
author or the recipient of the letters in question. 

Even if Ms. Wiencek 's statements were true, we believe that 
they are insufficient in conjunction with the other evidence 
reflected in this report and the Special Counsel's Report to be 
considered significant evidence of a conspiracy. Furthermore, in 
light of the discussion above and the repeated denials of both 
Dr. Brian and Mr. Videnieks, we believe that her statements lack 

7 . Conclusions Regarding a Brian /DOJ Conspiracy 

Based on our review of all of the INSLAW allegations 
concerning a conspiracy between Dr. Brian and Hadron, Inc. , on 
the one hand, and the Department of Justice, on the other, to 
acquire PROMIS or to destroy INSLAW, we conclude that there is no 


This conclusion is in 

credible evidence of such a conspiracy. 15 
accord with the conclusions of both the Special Counsel (Bua 
Report 121-123) and the Senate Staff Report (Senate Staff Report 
p. 30) . 

D. There Is Insufficient Evidence to Conclude that INSLAW's 

PROMIS Has Been Distributed by the Department of Justice to 
Other Agencies or Departments of the U.S. Government. 

1. There Is No Evidence that The FBI's FOIMS System Was 
Pirated From or Based on PROMIS. 

a. The Allegations. 

Since 1991, INSLAW has repeatedly asserted that the Federal 
Bureau of Investigation installed and is running PROMIS under the 
name Field Office Information Management System ("FOIMS") . These 
allegations are based primarily on two sources of information: 
Terry D. Miller, president of Government Sales Consultants, Inc., 
and an unnamed "confidential senior DOJ source" who, according to 
INSLAW, claims that former Acting Director of the FBI John Otto 
admitted to him that FOIMS was actually PROMIS. According to 
INSLAW's theory, the FBI and DEA were each ordered by the 

15 There are several additional individuals other than those 
identified in this report who have been identified by INSLAW or 
their sources as having first-hand knowledge of a conspiracy. 

One such person is Lois Battistoni, a former employee of DOJ's 
Criminal Division. The Special Counsel's investigation revealed 
that she has absolutely no first hand knowledge of any relevant 
events and that her leads were dead-ends. (Bua Report 106-113.) 

A review of the files maintained by House investigators indicates 
that they too spent a considerable amount of time speaking to 
individuals identified by Ms. Battistoni without uncovering any 
credible evidence that corroborates the conspiracy allegations. 
The ‘information provided by INSLAW's other sources also appears 
to lack credibility or is impossible to corroborate. 


Department of Justice in 1988 to implement PROMIS and to get rid 
of their then existing case tracking software. 

Despite the great importance placed on these allegations by 
INSLAW, there is simply no evidence that the FBI ever installed 
or used PROMIS or that FOIMS is some sort of derivative of 
PROMIS. (See Bua Report 141-146.) The FBI has always maintained 
that it never used PROMIS and that the FOIMS system was developed 
entirely in-house at the FBI. As the House Committee Report 
makes clear, Mr. Miller has no first-hand knowledge of the use of 
PROMIS by the FBI but has merely been repeating rumors that FOIMS 
contains PROMIS software stolen from INSLAW. (House Report 60.) 
Further, Mr. Otto denied that he ever said that FOIMS is PROMIS. 
(Bua Report 143.) The unnamed source who allegedly heard Mr. 

Otto make the admission never came forward during the Special 
Counsel's investigation or during our investigation despite our 
repeated requests to the Hamiltons and INSLAW's counsel to 
encourage this and other alleged sources to cooperate. Finally, 
the Special Counsel retained Professor Dorothy Denning, Chair of 
the Computer Science Department at Georgetown University, to 
compare FOIMS and PROMIS. After reviewing the functionality of 
the programs, Professor Denning concluded that PROMIS, which is 
written in the COBOL computer language, is so different from 
FOIMS, which is written in the NATURAL/ ADABASE language, that one 
could not have served as a platform for the development of the 



16 She also concluded that it was not necessary to compare 

the code of the two programs. (Bua Report 145-146.) 

The Special Counsel concluded that the FBI's FOIMS software 

is not PROMIS or any derivative of PROMIS. The House Committee 

also failed to uncover any evidence supporting INSLAW's 

allegations though it recommended further investigation: 

While there is no specific evidence that PROMIS is being 
used by the FBI, the matter could be resolved quickly if an 
independent agency or expert was commissioned to conduct a 
code comparison of the PROMIS and FOIMS system. 

(House Report 61.) 

INSLAW is extremely critical of the Special Counsel's 
analysis. (INSLAW Rebuttal 31-34.) INSLAW's principal criticism 
is the failure of Professor Denning actually to compare the code 
of the FOIMS program to the code of the PROMIS program. 17 It 

16 The original version of FOIMS was written in COBOL. 
However, according to Gordon Zacrep who has been involved in the 
development of FOIMS since its earliest days in 1977, FOIMS was 
rewritten in the NATURAL language beginning in 1983. Mr. Zacrep 
believes the first installation of the NATURAL version of FOIMS 
was in 1985. He said the system was converted to the NATURAL 
language because of the greater power of that language as 
compared to COBOL. 

17 INSLAW also points to "possible dissembling" by the FBI as 
evidence of some type of cover-up. For example, INSLAW quotes 
John Maguire, the founder of the company that markets the NATURAL 
programming language, for the proposition that the description of 
the FOIMS system as containing 570,000 lines of code was "wrong 
by an order of magnitude." (INSLAW Rebuttal 33.) However, our 
discussion with Mr. Maguire revealed that his statement had been 
badly misrepresented by INSLAW. He did say that he had never 
heard of a single "program" with over 500,000 lines of code. He 
told us that programmers typically would create large complicated 
software systems by combining a large number of smaller discrete 
"programs." This allows for greater ease in debugging and 
otherwise managing the system. When we described the general 
contours of the FOIMS system (i.e. the number of programs and the 
number of lines of code) , Mr. Maguire stated that such an 


should be noted, however, that INSLAW does not identify any 
additional support for these allegations in its rebuttal papers. 

b. Our Investigation Confirmed that There Is No 
Relationship between FOIMS and PROMIS. 

Despite the fact that there is absolutely no support for 
INSLAW's claims (other than the statements allegedly made by the 
anonymous source) , we made a considerable effort to investigate 
INSLAW's allegations about the connection between FOIMS and 
PROMIS because of the importance placed on these allegations by 
INSLAW in its rebuttal papers and in correspondence with us. our 
investigation confirmed that FOIMS is not in any way related to 
PROMIS and that there is no evidence that PRoMIS has ever been 
used by the FBI. 

Our investigation proceeded on two tracks. First, we spoke 
to several FBI officials with varying degrees of involvement in 
the development and operation of the FOIMS system over the years. 
We also reviewed documents made available to us by the FBI 
regarding the early development of FOIMS as well as annual FOIMS 
System Plans. It appears that the concept for what eventually 
became FOIMS originated in 1977. At that time, the FBI committed 
itself to developing a system that would allow individual FBI 
field offices to coordinate their many tasks. (Thus, the name: 
Field Office Information Management System.) Coding on the 
prototype program — which would be installed in the Richmond, 
Virginia field office — began immediately in the COBOL computer • 

arrangement sounded reasonable to him. 


language. In 1979, the Richmond prototype was installed in the 
New York City office to see how it would run in a large office. 
Shortly thereafter, the FBI decided to change the hardware they 
were using to run FOIMS from DEC minicomputers to IBM mainframes. 

In 1983, FBI programmers began to rewrite the entire program 
in the more powerful NATURAL language. The first NATURAL FOIMS 
program was installed in 1985, and the NATURAL version slowly 
replaced the COBOL version around the country. The COBOL version 
of FOIMS was used in the Richmond and New York City offices until 
the late 1980s. 

All of the individuals we spoke with and documents we 
reviewed are essentially consistent with the above summary. We 
did not uncover any evidence inconsistent with the basic premise 
that FOIMS was developed entirely in-house by the FBI. 

The second track of our investigation focused, because of 
the importance placed on a code comparison by INSLAW and the 
House Judiciary Committee, on the retention of an expert to 
compare the code of the FOIMS and PROMIS programs. We retained 
Professor Randall Davis of the Massachusetts Institute of 
Technology for that purpose. Professor Davis is a professor in 
the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department at MIT 
and is the Associate Director of the Artificial Intelligence 
Laboratory. He is highly regarded in his field. In a letter 
dated January 26, 1994, INSLAW's counsel concurred with this 

Your decision to engage the services of Dr. Randall 
Davis of MIT as an expert witness to assist in this 


comparison is appreciated. We are aware that Dr. Davis has 
served as an expert witness in computer software 
infringement cases in the federal courts, and we do not 
question his technical qualifications. 

We attempted to seek input from INSLAW and its counsel prior 
to Professor Davis' code comparison in order to enhance the 
possibility that INSLAW would find his conclusions acceptable. 
Accordingly, we invited INSLAW's principals and INSLAW's counsel 
to meet with Professor Davis several weeks before the scheduled 
code comparison. It was hoped that Professor Davis would be able 
to ask questions of those individuals about the structure of the 
PROMIS code and the nature of INSLAW's claims as they relate to 
the FOIMS system. We also invited INSLAW to have a 
representative observe Professor Davis as he performed his code 
comparison. INSLAW refused both invitations despite repeated 
statements by INSLAW's principals and counsel that they wanted to 
participate in that process. 1 ® Among the reasons INSLAW stated 
for its refusal to participate in these efforts were our refusals 
to comply with INSLAW's requests for detailed records regarding 
the development and functionality of FOIMS and for direct access 
to the FOIMS code. We were unable to comply with these requests 
based on the FBI ' s determination that the release of such 
information would compromise the system's security. We do not 
think the FBI's position is unreasonable. 

lg According to the special Counsel's report, Mr. Hamilton 
also refused to participate in Professor Denning's comparison of 
FOIMS and PROMIS. (Bua Report 144-145.) 


INSLAW did, however, make some suggestions about what 
versions of the FOIMS and PROMIS systems should be compared. In 
a January 26, 1994 letter, INSLAW's counsel stated that it was 
important that "the FOIMS system that is being compared is 
written in the same COBOL programming language in which PROMIS is 
written." In a letter dated January 13, 1994 and forwarded to us 
along with the above-referenced correspondence, J.T. Westermeier, 
an expert retained by INSLAW, wrote: 

The comparison of the FOIMS and PROMIS software needs 
to be conducted properly. The proposed software comparison 
will be of very little probative value unless the comparison 
is made on the basis of the 1983-1984 version of FOIMS and 

Professor Davis attempted to incorporate these suggestions 
into his analysis. Accordingly, he compared the code from the 
"Baltimore" version of PROMIS, 19 with a COBOL version of FOIMS. 
According to Louise Goldsworthy of the FBI's Information 
Resources Division, the COBOL FOIMS provided to Professor Davis 
was last used in either 1984 or 1985. 20 

After completing his comparison and analysis, Professor 
Davis summarized his findings in a letter: 

19 The actual software which was used for the comparison is 
currently in use in the U.S. Attorney's Office in the Northern 
District of Texas. It was installed there in 1985. However, it 
is referred to as the "Baltimore" version as it is the same 
software originally installed in the District of Maryland in 

20 According to Ms. Goldsworthy, the FBI does not retain 
archival copies of every version of FOIMS. Because the COBOL 
version of the system was replaced by the NATURAL/ ADABASE version 
during the 1980s, there are very few copies of the COBOL program 
still in existence. 


As we discussed in your office on April 6, 1994, I have 
completed a thorough examination of the COBOL FOIMS code 
recovered from backup tape by the FBI programmers, I have 
compared it to the code for the " Baltimore” version of the 
inslaw Promis system provided by the EOUSA, and I have 
examined the code for the current (Adabase [NATURAL]) 
version of FOIMS. I have also had ample opportunity to run 
both the Promis and the current FOIMS system in order to 
understand their capabilities, and have examined manuals for 
both systems. 

I have reviewed a number of documents describing the 
background and circumstances of the case, including: the 

September 10, 1992, Investigative Report by the Judiciary 
Committee on the Inslaw Affair, Inslaw's Analysis and 
Rebuttal of the Bua Report, the 10 January 1993 letter and 
report from Dr. Dorothy Denning describing her findings, a 
current Promis manual, two Collections Procedure Manuals for 
Promis dating from 1984 (one for Southern CA, the other for 
Maryland), an article from Wired from 1993, a letter to you 
from Elliot L. Richardson, Esq., dated 26 January 1994, and 
the enclosure to that letter, a letter dated 13 January 1994 
from J.T. Westermeier, Esq., to Mr. William Hamilton. 

Based on all of this information, I am of the opinion 
that there is no support of any form for the allegation that 
either the COBOL FOIMS code or the Adabase FOIMS program 
were copied from or to any significant degree modeled after 
the Promis system. While there is some similarity in the 
tasks undertaken by both programs, there are only very minor 
functional similarities in the design of Promis and FOIMS, 
and the implementations of those functional similarities are 
entirely consistent with completely independent creation: 
Even where similarity in high level function appears, the 
actual code used to create the function in Promis and FOIMS 
is quite different. 

Based on our investigation and the investigations of the 
House Judiciary Committee and the Special Counsel, we conclude 
there is no evidence that PROMIS has ever been used by the FBI or 
that FOIMS is or is based on PROMIS. 21 

21 INSLAW also alleges that the Drug Enforcement Agency was 
directed by the Attorney General in 1988 to install PROMIS. This 
allegation is based on statements allegedly made by Carl Jackson, 
a former DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator, that the Attorney 
General issued "non~negotiable" orders to the FBI and DEA to 
"chuck" their existing systems and replace them with PROMIS. 


2. There Is No Credible Evidence that INSLAW's PROMIS Is 
in Use or Has Been in Use in Any Agency of the U.S. 
Government Other than the Department of Justice. 

INSLAW also maintains that its PROMIS software has been used 
or is currently in use in a variety of U.S. government agencies 
outside the Department of Justice. Although the list of such 
agencies is constantly evolving, INSLAW's claims focus primarily 
on the Central Intelligence Agency, the National Security Agency 
and the U.S. Navy. We have carefully reviewed these allegations, 
interviewed individuals from each of these agencies and reviewed 
certain documents provided by the CIA and the Navy. We are 
unaware of any credible evidence that any of these organizations 
ever used INSLAW's PROMIS software system. 

As with most of INSLAW's assertions, these claims are based 
almost completely on the alleged statements of anonymous sources 
who have refused to cooperate with our review of the Special 
Counsel's report. 22 However, each of these agencies has, in 

Philip Cammera, a current DEA Deputy Assistant Administrator for 
Information Systems, told the Special Counsel that the 
allegations were false and that the DEA had never used PROMIS. 

We attempted to interview Mr. Jackson who ultimately refused to 
speak to us. However, House Judiciary Committee records 
documenting their investigation indicate that House investigators 
were unable to substantiate any of Mr. Jackson's allegations 
through either minutes of the meetings in which the "non- 
negotiable" orders were allegedly discussed or through interviews 
with DEA computer technicians. 

22 For example, the sources for the claim that INSLAW's 
PROMIS is in use on U.S. nuclear submarines are "a trusted INSLAW 
source with close ties to the CIA," "another individual with ties 
to the CIA" and "a computer programmer on board a U.S. Navy 
nuclear submarine." INSLAW refused to identify any of these 
individuals. Unnamed sources also allegedly provided INSLAW with 
information relating to the CIA and NSA. 


fact, acknowledged that they either use software systems or 
maintain databases that are identified by the "PROMIS" acronym. 

At the request of either INSLAW, individuals related to INSLAW or 
the House Judiciary Committee, each of these organizations has 
undertaken internal investigations to determine whether the 
"PROMIS” program or database in use within that organization is 
in any way related to INSLAW's PROMIS software. Each has 
determined that there is no connection. 

The CIA uses a software system called Project Management 
Integrated System developed by Strategic Software Planning 
Corporation ("SSPC") of Cambridge, Massachusetts. 23 In response 
to congressional inquiries, the CIA undertook an extensive search 
to determine whether it had ever obtained INSLAW's PROMIS. As 
discussed in detail in the report of the House Judiciary 
Committee, it was subsequently determined that INSLAW's PROMIS 
had never been obtained or used by the CIA. (House Report 57-59.) 
We met with representatives of the CIA's General Counsel's Office 
and Office of Legislative Affairs who were involved in 
investigating the charges made by INSLAW. They detailed the 
breadth of the investigation undertaken by the CIA and confirmed 
the conclusion that INSLAW's PROMIS was never in use at the CIA. 
They also stated that their investigation uncovered the fact that 
SSPC ' s PROMIS system had been used at various times by two 
sections within the CIA. They also made their investigative 

23 SSPC ' s PROMIS is also used by certain Canadian government 
agencies. For a more detailed discussion about SSPC and its 
PROMIS software, see the discussion in the following section. 


files available for our review. Those files were fully 
consistent with the CIA's findings and indicated that an 
extensive effort to search for the software had been 
undertaken. 24 

We also met with representatives of the National Security 
Agency. The NSA maintains a database known as Product Management 
Information Systems or "PROMIS" according to Carol Fay Boomer, 
branch chief for the office which maintains the database, and 
Nancy Starecky, who participated in the original development of 
the database. "Product" is a term used within the NSA to refer 
to intelligence reports. Accordingly, the NSA "PROMIS" database 
contains abstracts of intelligence reports generated by various 
parts of the NSA. Both Ms. Starecky and Ms. Boomer emphasized 
that the NSA "PROMIS" is not a software program, but rather is an 

24 In INSLAW's Addendum, INSLAW argues that the CIA has made 
inconsistent and contradictory statements regarding the existence 
of INSLAW's PROMIS software at the CIA. (INSLAW Addendum 7.) In 
response to an inquiry from Chairman Brooks in late 1990, E. 
Norbett Garrett, the CIA's Director of Congressional Affairs, 

We have checked with Agency components that track data 
processing procurement or that would be likely users of 
PROMIS, and we have been unable to find any indication that 
the Agency ever obtained PROMIS software. If you have some 
more specific information regarding this matter, we would 
appreciate hearing from you. 

Subsequently, the CIA conducted a more thorough search at 
Chairman Brooks' request. That search was fully documented in 
the materials provided to us by the CIA. In November 1991, CIA 
Deputy Director Richard Kerr informed Chairman Brooks that the 
more extensive search again revealed that INSLAW's PROMIS had 
never been obtained by the CIA although the CIA had used "PROMIS" 
software developed by Strategic Software Planning Corporation. 

We disagree with INSLAW that these statements are inconsistent or 
evidence of dissembling by the CIA. 


application of the commercially available M204 database 
management system. According to Ms. Starecky, M2 04 is one of the 
earlier database systems. It basically allows the user to define 
data fields and other information to be contained in individual 
databases, such as the NS A PROMIS database. Ms. Starecky stated 
that she was involved in the original development of the NSA 
PROMIS database in the 1970s which was developed primarily to 
allow the accumulation of management information regarding the 
productivity of various NSA divisions. 

Finally, the U.S. Navy has also acknowledged that it uses a 
database with the "PROMIS" acronym. According to a letter signed 
by the Navy's Inspector General, Vice Admiral D. M. Bennett, an 
internal Navy investigation revealed that the Naval Undersea 
Warfare Center Division had developed in-house a database 
referred to as the Program Management Information System or 
"PROMIS." The investigation also determined that the Navy did 
not use INSLAW's PROMIS software and that the Navy "PROMIS" 
database was in no way related to INSLAW's PROMIS. We reviewed 
internal Navy documents regarding that investigation which were 
all consistent with the findings stated by Vice Admiral Bennett. 
In addition, we spoke with several individuals associated with 
the Navy including a Supervisory Electronics Engineer employed in 
the Logistics Support Branch at the Naval Undersea Warfare 
Center, Newport Division. The Supervisory Electronics Engineer 
told us that he has been involved with the Navy's "PROMIS" 
database since it was developed in the early 1980s. He stated 


that the database was designed and developed in-house under his 
direction. The word "program" in the database’s name refers to 
the Fleet Modernization Program. The database is used to 
maintain an inventory of combat systems and other equipment 
aboard Navy submarines and, thus, to help plan for future changes 
in fleet configurations. According to the Supervisory 
Electronics Engineer, the database is not accessible from the 
submarines but only from certain land bases. 25 

It should be noted that we were concerned when we learned 
that all three of these agencies were using databases or software 
programs with the same "PROMIS” acronym. However, our 
investigation has failed to uncover any evidence that these 
programs were based on or in any other way derived from INSLAW’s 
software. When one considers the frequency with which ’’MIS" — 
"Management Information Systems" — is used within the computer 
field, the fact the databases share the "PROMIS" acronym is less 
remarkable than it initially appears. In light of our findings 
and the lack of any support for INSLAW's allegations other than 
the shared acronym and the alleged statements of unknown sources, 

25 INSLAW asserts that the database is maintained on U.S. as 
well as British submarines and not solely on land bases. These 
assertions are based on unnamed sources and a 1987 contract 
solicitation published in the Commerce Business Daily seeking 
technical and engineering services for, among many other things, 
the Navy’s "PROMIS" database. Though the synopsis of the 
statement of work contained in the announcement does appear to be 
somewhat ambiguous, INSLAW has grossly mischaracterized the 
announcement in its Addendum. (INSLAW Addendum 6.) Furthermore, 
in light of the fact the announcement states that it is seeking 
services to support a "land based test facility," we do not think 
INSLAW’s charge that the Navy has made contradictory statements 
with regard to this database withstands any scrutiny. 


we conclude that there is no credible evidence that INSLAW's 
PROMIS software has been obtained by the CIA, the NSA or the U.S. 

E. There Is No Credible Evidence that the Department of Justice 
or Individuals Involved with the Department of Justice 
Improperly Distributed PROMIS Software to Foreign 
Governments or Entities. 

INSLAW alleges that Department of Justice officials, working 

with Dr. Brian and Robert Maxwell, were involved in the 

international distribution of Enhanced PROMIS. According to 


The accounts are generally consistent about the motivations 
for the sales: (1) the personal financial gain of Earl Brian 
and colleagues; (2) the generation of extra funds for 
financing U.s. covert intelligence operations that the U.S. 
Congress has declined to finance, such as the mid-1980's 
covert assistance to the Contras in Nicaragua; and (3) an 
initiative to penetrate the secret files of foreign 
intelligence and law enforcement agencies by inducing them 
to acquire and implement the PROMIS database management 
software and the necessary computer hardware, after the 
software and hardware have been secretly modified to permit 
electronic eavesdropping by the U.S. National Security 
Agency . 

(INSLAW Rebuttal 36.) INSLAW maintains the software was sold to 
government agencies in Israel, Canada, Jordan, Egypt, Singapore, 
South Africa, eastern European countries, Central American 
countries and elsewhere. 26 

26 We determined that it was unnecessary to investigate most 
of these allegations as they are based primarily on 
uncorroborated statements usually attributed to unnamed sources. 
In addition to foreign governments, INSLAW also asserts that 
PROMIS was distributed to certain international organizations, 
including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund. 
(INSLAW Addendum 17-18.) The basis for these claims are also the 
alleged statements of unnamed government officials. (Reporter 


The Special Counsel concluded after a preliminary 
investigation that additional investigation of these claims was 
not warranted and that it ’'would be an irresponsible use of the 
taxpayers' money to initiate this type of international fishing 
expedition where there is so little reason to believe that we 
would find evidence of a crime or other wrongdoing by the 
government." (Bua Report 152.) However, although it failed to 
uncover any direct evidence of the international distribution of 
PROMIS other than the testimony of Mr. Ben-Menashe and others 
discussed above, the House Judiciary Committee concluded that 
"questions remain" as to Whether such distributions took place. 
(House Report 111.) 

We have carefully reviewed INSLAW's allegations and the 
evidence which INSLAW claims supports them, the files of the 
House investigation and all other available documentation. Based 
on that review, we find absolutely no credible evidence that 
Enhanced PROMIS was distributed internationally by the Department 
of Justice or others associated with the Department. INSLAW's 
allegations are based on two basic sources: (1) the testimony of 
Mr. Ben-Menashe, Mr. Riconosciuto and others who, as discussed in 

Anthony Kimery also claims to have anonymous sources that confirm 
the World Bank uses PROMIS.) Mr. Ibrahim Shihata, Vice President 
and General Counsel of the World Bank) informed us that he 
conducted two investigations at the Bank after being informed by 
INSLAW's counsel of INSLAW's allegations. Both Mr. Shihata and 
Mr. Everardo Wessel of the Bank's Information Center informed us 
that they found no evidence that the Bank was using or had ever 
used any version of the PROMIS program. 


detail above, are totally lacking in credibility, 27 and (2) the 
unsubstantiated conjectures and musings of INSLAW and its 
principals. As a result, we do not intend to recount all of the 
various charges made by INSLAW in this report. 

However, there are three areas upon which INSLAW has focused 
its attention that we will address: (1) the alleged distribution 
of Enhanced PROMIS to Israel; (2) the alleged distribution of 
Enhanced PROMIS to Canada; and (3) the alleged role of the late 
Robert Maxwell in those efforts. Our review of those allegations 
leads us to conclude that there is no credible evidence 
supporting those claims. 

1 . The Alleged Distribution of Enhanced PROMIS to Israel. 

INSLAW maintains that Enhanced PROMIS was provided to Israel 
in 1983 and that Israel later became heavily involved with U.S. 
intelligence agencies in the further international distribution 
of the software. The root of this allegation lies in the 
undisputed fact that the Department of Justice did, in fact, 
provide some version of the software to an Israeli government 
representative in May 1983. Justice Department officials have 
steadfastly maintained that the software provided to Israel was 
the public domain version of PROMIS (thus making it perfectly 

27 Mr. Ben-Menashe is, according to INSLAW, the primary 
source for these allegations. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R- Crim. Proc. 


proper for the U.S. government to provide such software), and 
documents prepared contemporaneously with the transfer to Israel 
reflect that fact. Nevertheless, the House Report suggests that 
this transfer was a cause of concern for the Committee: 

Department of Justice documents show that a "public 
domain" version of the PROMIS software was sent to domestic 
and international entities including Israel. Given the 
Department's position regarding its ownership of all 
versions of PROMIS, questions remain whether iNSLAW's 
Enhanced PROMIS was distributed by Department officials to 
numerous sources outside the Department, including foreign 
governments . 

(House Report 111.) 

Our review of the prior investigations and the results of 
our own investigation revealed no credible evidence that the 
software provided to Israel in 1983 was Enhanced PROMIS and, in 
fact, verified that it was the public domain version of the 
software that was transferred. Furthermore, there is no other 
credible evidence of which we are aware that indicates that 
Enhanced PROMIS was ever provided to Israel. 

There is no question that some version of PROMIS was 
provided to an Israeli representative in May 1983. On May 12, 
1983, Jack Rugh, a Department of Justice employee involved in the 
administration of the PROMIS contract, forwarded a magnetic tape 
and supporting documentation to Madison Brewer for transmittal to 
Dr. Joseph Ben Orr of Israel with a memorandum providing the 

Enclosed are the PROMIS materials that you asked me to 
produce for Dr. Ben Orr of the Government of Israel. These 
materials consist of the LEAA DEC PDP 11/70 [public domain] 
version of PROMIS on magnetic tape along with the printed 
specifications of that tape, as well as two printed volumes 


of PROMIS documentation for the LEAA version of the system. 

We spoke with Dr. Ben Orr, who lives in Israel, several 
times by telephone. In 1983, Dr. Ben Orr was the Senior 
Assistant State Attorney for the Israeli Justice Ministry. He 
spent part of 1982 and 1983 working in the Justice Department's 
Office of Legal Policy as part of a new and short-lived exchange 
program between the U.S. Justice Department and the Israeli 
Justice Ministry. 2 ® He told us that he essentially acted as a 
consultant to the Department on several issues. He retired in 
1989 as District Attorney for the city of Jerusalem. 

Dr. Ben Orr stated that while he was at the Department of 
Justice he learned that the Department had decided to computerize 
the U.S. Attorneys* Offices. He asked to be allowed to watch the 
process of automating those offices as he knew that Israel was 
considering automating certain functions in its prosecutors' 
offices. As part of that effort, he travelled to several 
locations around the country to observe both the installation and 
utilization of PROMIS. 

Dr. Ben Orr also stated that he set up a meeting with Mr. 
Hamilton at INSLAW's offices. During that meeting, Mr. Hamilton 
provided Dr. Ben Orr with some papers that illustrated the data 

28 INSLAW made a Freedom of Information Act request in March 
1993 for Justice Department documents relating to Dr. Ben Orr and 
another Israeli participant in the exchange program. The search 
uncovered no responsive files. We asked the Office of 
Information and Privacy to expand their search beyond that 
statutorily required in order to determine for certain whether 
any responsive documents existed. They still were unable to 
locate any documents. 


compiling potential of the PROMIS software. Dr. Ben Orr said he 
forwarded those papers to the Israeli Justice Ministry for their 
review. Dr. Ben Orr said that this was the only meeting that he 
ever had with Mr. Hamilton and that he was the only 
representative from the Department of Justice or the Israeli 
government at the meeting. He noted that Mr. Hamilton did not 
demonstrate the software during the meeting. 29 

Dr. Ben Orr subsequently inquired of the Department’s 
’’computer people" whether there was any way he could get a copy 
of the PROMIS software for possible use in Israel. After some 
negotiation, the Department gave him a reel of tape with the 
software on it and two large files of reading material. Dr. Ben 
Orr said that he was assured by Department personnel that the 
Department owned the software that was being provided to him. He 
could not remember the names of the "computer people" with whom 
he dealt. 

Dr. Ben Orr stated that when he returned to Israel he 
brought the software to the Justice Ministry. He said that the 
Ministry decided not to use the PROMIS software for two reasons: 
(1) the computer then in place at the Ministry was too small to 
use the software; and (2) the Israeli government decided that 

29 INSLAW maintains that Rafi Eitan, an Israeli intelligence 
officer, actually attended the meeting with Mr. Hamilton using 
"Dr. Ben Orr" as an alias. Dr. Ben Orr denied this was true. He 
stated that he attended the meeting with Mr. Hamilton. 
Furthermore, he stated that he knew of Mr. Eitan through the 
media but had never met him personally. Finally, Dr. Ben Orr 
described this and other allegations made by Mr. Hamilton as 
"sheer lies and imagination." 


they wanted to install a program developed by an Israeli company 
rather than a foreign firm and one that was tailored specifically 
to the needs of the Ministry. The entire project was put out to 
bid. Dr. Ben Orr stated that the Israeli government never did 
and does not now use any version of PROMIS. 

During our interview, Dr. Ben orr stated that he still had 
the magnetic tape that was provided to him by the Department of 
Justice in 1983. After extensive negotiations. Dr. Ben Orr 
agreed to deliver the tape to the security officer at the 
American Consulate in Jerusalem. The tape was subsequently 
delivered to our offices. 

With the aid of Dr. Randall Davis, we reviewed the contents 
of the tape in order to determine whether the tape contained the 
public domain version of PROMIS or Enhanced Promis. In 
particular, we looked for evidence that the software on the tape 
included the three major enhancements identified by INSLAW as the 
constituting the difference between public domain PROMIS and 
Enhanced PROMIS: the Data Base Adjustment subsystem, the Batch 
Update subsystem and the 32-bit Architecture VAX version of 
PROMIS. (See In re Inslaw . 83 B.R. at 98-100, for a detailed 
description of the functions of these enhancements.) We also 
reviewed the code contained on the tape to determine the dates 
the various programs were developed. 

Based on that review, there was no indication that the 
software on the tape provided by Dr. Ben Orr included any of the 
primary enhancements that INSLAW maintains creates Enhanced 


PROMIS. Perhaps roost telling, the indicated source computer and 
object computer for each program on the tape was the "PDP 11" 
computer. This is consistent with the software being the public 
domain version. According to INSLAW, one of the major 
improvements in Enhanced PROMIS was the redesign of the software 
to be used on 32-bit architecture VAX minicomputers. None of the 
code on the tape in question indicated that it was for a VAX 
computer. Based upon the analysis of the code, Dr. Davis 
concluded that the tape almost certainly contained the , public 
domain version of the software. 30 

Nevertheless, INSLAW maintains that the software delivered 
to Israel in 1983 was Enhanced PROMIS and that Israeli 
intelligence officer Rafi Eitan, using the alias of Dr. Joseph 
Ben Orr, was the individual who met with Mr. Hamilton. INSLAW 
bases these claims on the following: the testimony of Ari Ben- 
Menashe, the fact that the tape was delivered in May 1983 shortly 
after Modification 12 was ratified, and the fact that the 
description provided to Mr. Hamilton by an Israeli reporter of 
Dr. Ben Orr does not, according to Mr. Hamilton, match the 
description of the individual he met with in 1983. ( See INSLAW 
Rebuttal 38-43; INSLAW Addendum 9-12.) As discussed above, we 
have already concluded that the testimony of Mr. Ben-Menashe 

30 Based on the Bankruptcy Court's opinion, it is a little 
difficult to understand how any program delivered to Israel in 
May 1983 could include the three primary enhancements which 
INSLAW claims are proprietary to INSLAW. According to Finding of 
Fact 28, the Data Base Adjustment enhancements were not even 
delivered to the Department of Justice until 1985. In re Inslaw . 
83 B.R. at 98. 


lacks credibility. Second, we do not think the fact that the 
software was delivered after the implementation of Modification 
12 necessarily leads to the conclusion that it was Enhanced 
PROMIS rather than public domain PROMIS. In fact, our review of 
the code on the tape indicates that the tape contains only the 
public domain version of the software. Finally, we question the 
credibility of the identification by Mr. Hamilton and other 
INSLAW employees from "a police-style photographic lineup*' of Mr. 

Eitan as the individual with whom he met in 1983. (INSLAW 
Rebuttal 40-41, INSLAW Addendum 10-11.) In light of the fact 
that all the other evidence indicates that Enhanced PROMIS was 
not delivered to Israel, the alleged identification by Mr. 

Hamilton of Mr. Eitan does not, in our opinion, constitute 
significant credible evidence that either Mr. Eitan attended the ) 

1983 meeting as "Dr. Ben Orr" or that the Department of Justice 
distributed Enhanced PROMIS to Israel. 31 

31 As further evidence of Israel's alleged involvement in the 
distribution of PROMIS, INSLAW points to a passage in Mr. Ben- 
Menashe's book in which he claims to have seen a cable directing 
that $600,000 from a CIA-Israeli slush fund be transferred to 
Earl Brian and then to the Washington, D.C. law firm of 
Dickstein, Shapiro & Morin ("DSM") . ( Profits of War 141.) The 
money was allegedly used to fund the severance package of 
INSLAW's counsel, Leigh Ratiner, from the firm. Mr. Ratiner 
allegedly had been too aggressive in challenging the Department 
of Justice. According to INSLAW, "In a meeting at the Justice 
Department on December 16, 1993, INSLAW presented a sensitive 
document, authored by a self-evidently credible person, offering, 
under appropriate circumstances, to make available evidence 
corroborative of significant elements of Ben-Menashe * s published 
claims." (INSLAW Addendum 4.) The source of this corroborative 
evidence was Reynaldo Liboro, the former office manager at DSM. 
Mr. Liboro is currently serving a five-year federal prison 
sentence at the Federal Correctional Institution in Butner, North 
Carolina for bank fraud and theft. Mr. Liboro pleaded guilty in 


2 . 

The Alleged Distribution of Enhanced PROMIS to Canada. 

INSLAW is critical of the Special Counsel's Report due to 
the Special Counsel's alleged failure to adequately investigate 
allegations that INSLAW 's PROMIS is in use in several agencies of 
the Canadian government. INSLAW is particularly critical of the 
Special counsel's decision not to interview former Canadian 
stockbroker John Belton. As discussed in Section IV(C) above, we 
interviewed Mr. Belton and found his information was almost 
completely based on statements by sources who he insisted on 
keeping anonymous. 

Nevertheless, the decision by the House Judiciary Committee 
granting us access to the records of its investigation allowed us 
to carefully review the statements of those individuals 
interviewed by Committee investigators about the alleged Canadian 
connection. Although the House Judiciary Committee concluded 
that it had ''been effectively thwarted in its attempts to support 
or reject the contention that INSLAW software was transferred to 
the Canadian Government" (House Report 57) , we found the 
transcripts of the relevant interviews to be most informative. 

1990 to defrauding DSM of approximately $1.3 million in a 
checking scam. According to the AUSA who handled the case, 
attorneys at DSM were aggressive in pursuing Mr. Liboro after the 
fraud was uncovered and Mr. Liboro had fled to the Philippines. 
During an interview with us, Mr. Liboro claimed to have first- 
hand knowledge of certain events consistent with the account 
provided by Mr. Ben-Menashe in his book. He also informed us 
that his former assistant at DSM might be able to confirm his 
story. We interviewed his former assistant who was unable to 
confirm any significant aspect of his story. 


House investigators took statements from at least six 
current or former employees of the Canadian government, all but 
two of which were given under oath. All those statements were 
consistent. 32 In essence, these officials described the process 
by which two Canadian agencies, Public Works Canada and the 
Canadian International Development Agency, analyzed and purchased 
a project management software package from Strategic Software 
Planning Corporation, a Massachusetts based company, in the mid- 
1980s. The program was called Project Management Integrated 
System or "PROMIS". There is no evidence linking this software 
to INSLAW's PROMIS other than the shared acronym. 

In 1991, the Canadian Workplace Automation Research Centre 
conducted a study to determine the then-current inventories of 
software packages, system development activities and hardware 
within the Canadian government. During that study, an error was 
made by a college student working on the inventory when he 
identified the vendor of the "PROMIS" software in use at the 
Canadian agencies as INSLAW rather than Strategic Software 
Planning Corporation. The student had been told that the 
software was called "PROMIS" and was tasked the responsibility of 
determining the vendor. He mistakenly concluded the vendor was 
INSLAW after a brief search of public records. A subsequent 
telephone call to INSLAW by that student seeking additional 

32 The witnesses included two employees of the Canadian 
International Development Agency; one employee of Public Works 
Canada; a former contractor of the Canadian Workplace Automation 
Research centre; and one current employee and one former intern 
of the Canadian Workplace Automation Research Centre. 


information about PROMIS as part of the study led to the 
allegations that INSLAW's PROMIS had been distributed to Canada. 
However, there is nothing in the testimony of any of these 
witnesses which supports such an hypothesis. 

Furthermore, Committee investigators also took a sworn 
statement from Massimo Grimaldi, president of Strategic Software 
Planning Corporation. As reflected in the House Judiciary 
Committee report, Mr. Grimaldi confirmed in that statement that 
his company had sold copies of its "PROMIS” software to Public 
Works Canada and CIDA. According to Mr. Grimaldi, the software 
was originally designed to perform scheduling, resource 
management and cost control functions on construction projects 
although its applications have become more generalized over the 
years . 33 

In conclusion, all of the available evidence indicates that 
the "PROMIS" program in use by certain Canadian agencies is not a 
version of INSLAW's PROMIS but rather a totally different program 
developed by a different company. 

33 Two other aspects of Mr. Grimaldi's statement are 
noteworthy. First, Mr. Grimaldi stated that his company tried to 
file for a Canadian trademark for "PROMIS" but discovered that 
there was another company (not INSLAW) that was already marketing 
a manufacturing system called "PROMIS." Accordingly, his company 
marketed its product as "SSP's PROMIS" or "PROMIS by Strategic 
Software planning Corporation" in Canada. Second, the transcript 
reflects that Mr. Grimaldi provided a copy of SSPC's PROMIS to 
House Committee investigators during the interview. During our 
review of Committee files, we were unable to locate the copy of 
the software or any documents describing any analysis of that 


3 . 

The Alleged Involvement of Robert Maxwell in the 
International Distribution of PROMTS. 

In the Addendum submitted to the Attorney General by INSLAW 
in February 1994, INSLAW maintains that the late British 
publisher Robert Maxwell played a critical role in the alleged 
international distribution of PROMIS by Israel and the United 
States. (INSLAW Addendum 12-14.) According to INSLAW, Robert 
Maxwell was used as a "cutout” by Israeli intelligence, f id. 4.) 
Furthermore, INSLAW maintains that "Maxwell's role as a cutout 
for a foreign nation's sale of computer software has been 
implicitly acknowledged by the actions of the FBI." f Id . ) There 
is simply no evidence — again, other than the statements by Mr. 
Ben-Menashe — of any involvement of Mr. Maxwell in the sale or 
distribution of PROMIS. 

The reference in INSLAW's Addendum to the implicit 
acknowledgement by the FBI of Mr. Maxwell's role in the 
dissemination of PROMIS and as a "cutout" for Israeli 
intelligence agencies apparently relates to the production of 
documents by the FBI pursuant to a FOIA request made by INSLAW in 
1993. On January 10, 1994, the FBI produced 20 pages of FBI 
documents in response to INSLAW's request for all documents 
relating to the "involvement of the late Robert Maxwell in the 
dissemination, marketing or sale of computer software systems, 
including but not limited to the PROMIS computer software 
product . between 1983 and 1992." (Emphasis added.) The FBI 
redacted portions of those documents prior to their distribution 
to INSLAW. Based on INSLAW's analysis of certain unredacted 


codes on those documents, INSLAW concluded that the Albuquerque, 
New Mexico office of the FBI conducted a "foreign 
counterintelligence investigation" of Mr. Maxwell and one of his 
corporations, f id. 13.) 

From this conclusion, INSLAW made a remarkable leap upon 
which it has based its Maxwell-related allegations: 

Why would the FBI conduct a foreign counterintelligence 
investigation of Robert Maxwell for selling computer 
software in New Mexico in 1984? It is reasonable to infer 
that the FBI office in Albuquerque opened a foreign 
counterintelligence investigation of Maxwell and Pergamon 
International because Maxwell sold PROMIS to one or more 
U.S. defense installations in New Mexico and because the FBI 
may have been concerned that a foreign nation [i.e. Israel] 
intended to use the PROMIS software as an electronic Trojan 
horse for penetrating the computerized database (s) of the 
targeted defense installation (s) . 


We disagree that such an inference is reasonable. There is 
no evidence supporting this flight of fancy by INSLAW. While we 
do not intend to comment on the accuracy of INSLAW’s analysis of 
certain codes on the documents provided to INSLAW, we do note 
that none of the documents in question even mentioned INSLAW or 
PROMIS. The FBI made unredacted versions of the documents 
available to us for our review. None of the documents referred 
to INSLAW or PROMIS or to any other subject even remotely related 
to INSLAW's allegations. In short, there is nothing of which we 
are aware that links Mr. Maxwell to PROMIS. 


F. There Is No Evidence that the Department of Justice's Office 
of Special Investigations Is a "Front" for the Department's 
Own Covert Intelligence Agency. 

In the Addendum to iNSLAW's Rebuttal submitted by INSLAW on 

February 14, 1994, INSLAW for the first time alleged that the 

Department's Office of Special Investigations ("OSI") was at the 

center of the various conspiracies which INSLAW claims exist. 

These remarkable — and wholly unsubstantiated — charges are 

summarized in the introduction to the Addendum: 

One of the organizational units that reports to Mark 
Richard is the Office of Special Investigations (OSI) . 

OSI's publicly-declared mission is to locate and deport Nazi 
war criminals. The Nazi war criminal program is, however, a 
front for the Justice Department's own covert intelligence 
service, according to disclosures recently made to INSLAW by 
several senior Justice Department career officials. 

One undeclared mission of this covert intelligence 
service has been the illegal dissemination of the 
proprietary version of PROMIS, according to information from 
reliable sources with ties to the U.S. intelligence 
community. INSLAW has, moreover, obtained a copy of a 27- 
page Justice Department computer printout, labelled 
"Criminal Division Vendor List." That list is actually a 
list of the commercial organizations and individuals who 
serve as "cutouts" for this secret justice Department 
intelligence agency, according to intelligence community 
informants and a preliminary analysis of the computerized 
list. . . 

According to written statements of which INSLAW has 
obtained copies, another undeclared mission of the Justice 
Department's covert agents was to insure that investigative 
journalist Danny Casolaro remained silent about the role of 
the Justice Department in the INSLAW scandal by murdering 
him in West Virginia in August 1991. 

(INSLAW Addendum 6.) These allegations were repeated in an 

INSLAW press release of approximately the same date. 

These charges are fantasy. There is no corroborative 

evidence that is even marginally credible. Rather, INSLAW finds 


it sufficient simply to rely on unnamed "reliable sources" and 
anonymous "senior Justice Department career officials." Not 
surprisingly, none of those individuals has come forward to be 
interviewed. Considering the outrageous nature of these charges 
and the absolute lack of evidence to support them, it is 
difficult not to question the motivations of INSLAW in asserting 

Nevertheless, we attempted to investigate these claims. 
Accordingly, we interviewed Deputy Assistant Attorney General 
Mark Richard, the individual INSLAW suggests oversees the covert 
operations of OSI. Mr. Richard stated that INSLAW's charges are 
ridiculous. He said that OSI is only involved in its stated 
mission of locating and deporting Nazi war criminals and in 
related projects such as the analysis of Kurt Waldheim's role 
during World War II. He did, however, note that OSI does work 
with various intelligence agencies in fulfilling its mandate of 
locating war criminals. He categorically denied any involvement 
by OSI in covert operations, the dissemination of PROMIS or the 
death of Mr. Casolaro. He said that he considers these and other 
allegations made by INSLAW to be slanderous. 

We should also note that during our tenure at the Department 
we have not become aware of OSI engaging in any of the types of 
activities alleged by INSLAW. 

With regard to the vendor list that INSLAW alleges lists 
those companies that serve as "cutouts" for the Department's 
covert intelligence activities, INSLAW relies for this assertion 


on two "usually reliable informants." (INSLAW Addendum 23.) We 
showed the list to Robert Bratt, Executive officer for the 
Justice Department's Criminal Division. Mr. Bratt said the list 
is exactly what it purports to be: a list of vendors used by the 
Criminal Division. According to Mr. Bratt, the Criminal Division 
has been using an automated system called PROCURE for requesting 
goods and services from the Justice Department's administrative 
offices since the beginning of the 1993 fiscal year. The main 
suppliers to the Division are maintained on a master list and 
given codes so that orders may be placed more quickly simply by 
inputting the vendor code. When the code is entered, the PROCURE 
system automatically pulls up the address, telephone number, 
contact person and other relevant data. Mr. Bratt stated that 
the list provided to us by INSLAW was simply a copy of the master 
list of Criminal Division vendors. 

We asked Mr. Bratt to print a current version of the vendor 
list. He did so, and it was in the same format as the list 
provided to us by INSLAW. Furthermore, it appears that, although 
the list generated by Mr. Bratt was longer, all the vendors 
included in the list provided to us by INSLAW were also on Mr. 
Bratt 's list. 

We have no reason to believe that the vendor list is 
anything other than what it purports to be and what Mr. Bratt 
identified it as. Conversely, according to INSLAW's theory, many 
of the largest companies in the world (including AT&T, Canon, IBM 
and Xerox) are fronts for OSI's covert operations. There is 


nothing to suggest this is true. 

The ’'support" for INSLAW's allegation that OSI was involved 
in the death of Mr. Casolaro is equally absurd. INSLAW relies on 
a series of typed questions and answers that were allegedly 
prepared by an unnamed senior CIA official and faxed to "an 
individual who has stated under oath that he has served as an 
operative on national security issues for various agencies of the 
U.S. Government" who transmitted the questions and answers to a 
San Francisco journalist. (INSLAW Addendum 24-25.) Those 
questions and answers attribute to the unnamed CIA source the 
assertion that Mr. Casolaro was "murdered by agents of the 
Justice Department." f id, at 25.) No matter how these charges 
may be presented, they are in essence allegations of an unnamed 
source without any corroborating evidence. As discussed in 
Section V below, we found no credible evidence that Mr. 

Casolaro' s death was anything other than a suicide. 

In conclusion, these newly articulated charges are totally 
devoid of substantiation and appear to have been either recently 
created by INSLAW or repeated by INSLAW without any regard to the 
truth . 

G. There Is No Credible Evidence that INSLAW-Related Documents 
Were Improperly Destroyed by the Justice Department Command 
Center . 

INSLAW alleges that Garnett Taylor, a former Department of 

Justice employee, and others associated with the Department of 

Justice Command Center destroyed "classified national 


security/ intelligence documents" related to INSLAW. INSLAW 
insinuates that the alleged destruction took place in order to 
keep embarrassing documents from being revealed. The Special 
Counsel was unable to uncover any evidence that any such 
destruction took place. (Bua Report 109-113.) We too were unable 
to find any evidence that any documents relating to INSLAW were 
destroyed by Mr. Taylor or other Command Center personnel. 

In its various papers, INSLAW has identified several sources 
as allegedly providing INSLAW with information linking Mr. Taylor 
to the destruction of INSLAW documents. In Exhibit B to the 
INSLAW Rebuttal, INSLAW asserts that two career DOJ employees — 
who insist on anonymity -- have confided to INSLAW information 
related to the improper destruction of documents. The first, 
"Witness #7," allegedly claims to have witnessed admissions about 
the destruction of documents by Mr. Taylor. "Witness #11" 
allegedly saw Mr. Taylor and his supervisor, James Walker, remove 
classified documents from the Civil Division for destruction. In 
addition, Mr. Hamilton claimed in his 1989 affidavit that Ronald 
LeGrand's confidential source "believes that documents relating 
to Project Eagle were shredded inside DOJ." 

None of these allegations have been corroborated. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

Mr. Walker 

informed the Special Counsel that there were no INSLAW or PROMIS 
documents maintained in the DOJ Security Department and that to 


his knowledge there were never any INSLAW documents in any of the 
safes he controlled or knew about. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

In. its Rebuttal, INSLAW argues that the testimonies of 
Messrs. Taylor and Walker are inconsistent and faults the Special 
Counsel for accepting the unsworn statement of Mr. Walker over 
the grand jury testimony of Mr. Taylor. This position is based 
on INSLAW's assumption (pursuant to FRCP 6(e), INSLAW was not 
provided access to grand jury testimony) that Mr. Taylor 
testified to the grand jury that “Walker had instructed Taylor to 
receive classified intelligence/national security documents 
relating to the INSLAW case from the files of a Civil Division 
attorney who had left DOJ, and then to destroy those documents." 
(INSLAW Rebuttal 46.) 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

In a November 19, 1993 letter, INSLAW's counsel stated the 

In this connection, you should be made aware of claims made 
directly to Mr. and Mrs. Hamilton by Mr. Garnett Taylor 


based on first-hand knowledge Mr. Taylor acquired while 
employed in one of the Department’s sensitive compartmented 
information Facilities (SClFs) . Subsequent to his 
appearance before Judge Bua ' s federal grand jury in Chicago, 
Mr. Taylor told the Hamiltons that the one provable felony 
committed in the INSLAW affair is the destruction of 
documentary evidence by the Department regarding INSLAW and 
PROMIS. Mr. Taylor further told the Hamiltons that the 
lawyer who represented Mr. Taylor in the Bua investigation 
told Mr. Taylor that the Bua investigation was proceeding in 
such a way as to deliberately avoid the discovery of the 
truth . 

We, of course, have no direct knowledge as to what Mr. 

Taylor told the Hamiltons 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

Furthermore, we interviewed Mr. Taylor about these 
alleged comments. Mr. Taylor admitted to speaking with the 
Hamiltons on several occasions 

Rule 6<e) of Fed. R. Cnm. Pro, 

but stated that he never told the Hamiltons that the “one 
provable felony committed in the INSLAW affair" involved the 
destruction of documents. Rather, he told us that he informed 
Mr. Hamilton in one of those conversations that there was nothing 
provable regarding the destruction of documents. 

Mr. Taylor did, however, state that he told the Hamiltons 
that he believes there may have been a felony committed relating 
to the destruction of INSLAW documents. He said his belief is 
based on media reports and on his understanding of the 
conclusions reached by the House judiciary committee. Mr. Taylor 
stated that he has no first-hand knowledge that any INSLAW- 
related documents were destroyed by the Department's security 
staff or others. He also stated that he has no reason to believe 


that Mr- Walker ever destroyed any documents related to INSLAW or 

Mr. Taylor also told us that his attorney, Susan Bogart, 
never said that the Special Counsel's investigation was 
proceeding in such a way as to deliberately avoid the discovery 
of the truth or anything to that effect. Mr. Taylor denied 
telling either of the Hamiltons that Ms. Bogart had made any such 
statements. However, he did tell the Hamiltons that he felt the 
Special Counsel's investigation was taking a long time and that 
he did not feel investigators asked him very penetrating 

Further, Ronald LeGrand's confidential source also failed to 
support INSLAW's allegations. As set forth in more detail in 
Section IV(B) above, we interviewed LeGrand's Source in some 
detail. During that interview, LeGrand's Source stated that he 
had no information regarding the destruction of any documents and 
that he never indicated otherwise to Mr. LeGrand. 

And finally, the anonymous sources that INSLAW and its 
principals claim have critical information concerning the 
destruction of documents never came forward to cooperate with our 
efforts. As discussed in Section IV (A) above, we attempted to 

M Material Omitted Pursuant to 

Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 

Ini addition, Mr. Taylor acknowledged to 
us tnat he is suing the Department of Justice through the Merit 
System Protection Board seeking reinstatement of his job. Mr. 
Taylor maintains that he was dismissed in retaliation for his 
decision to volunteer for service in the Desert Storm military 


provide adequate assurances to these individuals through INSLAW 
and its counsel. Nevertheless, neither these nor any of INSLAW's 
other anonymous sources agreed to be interviewed by us. 

H. There Is Insufficient Evidence To Support INSLAW's 

Allegation that Department of Justice Employees 

Conspired to Improperly Convert INSLAW's Bankruptcy Case. 

Of all the allegations made by INSLAW, the allegations that 
Department of Justice employees improperly attempted to convert 
INSLAW's Chapter 11 reorganization proceeding to a Chapter 7 
liquidation and that those employees subsequently committed 
perjury in order to cover-up their misdeeds are the most 
troubling. Unlike virtually all of INSLAW's other allegations, 
these allegations find some credible support in the testimony of 
some witnesses and in some, albeit ambiguous, contemporaneous 
notes. After exhaustively identifying and analyzing all of the 
relevant evidence (Bua Report 190-231) , the Special Counsel 
concluded, "Although the matter is not free from doubt, we 
conclude that there is insufficient evidence to support a finding 
that DOJ planned or attempted to convert INSLAW's bankruptcy case 
or engaged in any cover-up to conceal the conduct alleged." (Id. 

Based on our review of the Special Counsel's Report, 

INSLAW's Rebuttal and other analyses of these allegations, we 
concur with the Special Counsel. Although we are troubled by the 
recantation of testimony by two key witnesses, we believe that 
the weight of the evidence supports the conclusion that there was 

- 94 - 

no effort improperly to convert INSLAW's bankruptcy proceedings. 
Furthermore, we see no reason to overturn the decisions of the 
Office of Professional Responsibility and the Public Integrity 
Section on this matter. 

The facts surrounding these allegations are cumbersome and, 
at times, confusing. The Special Counsel used 41 pages to 
address and analyze those facts and to describe the various 
investigations that have been undertaken as a result of these 
allegations. We do not intend to restate that which is already 
succinctly set forth in the Special Counsel's report, especially 
in light of the fact that the basic facts have not changed since 
1987. We do note, however, that we believe the Special Counsel's 
analysis is well reasoned and is fully consistent with the 
underlying facts. 

Furthermore, we wish to identify two factors that, in 
addition to the analysis set forth in the Special Counsel's 
report, were important to our conclusion. 

(1) There is absolutely no evidence that any Justice 
Department official ever actually attempted to convert INSLAW's 
bankruptcy to a Chapter 7 liquidation during the time frame 
alleged by INSLAW. 35 It is important to note that the United 
States Trustee does not have the authority to convert a 

35 A motion to convert INSLAW's bankruptcy proceeding to a 
Chapter 7 proceeding was filed on September 9, 1987, pursuant to 
a routine Internal Revenue Service request based on INSLAW's 
failure to pay federal taxes. See 11 U.S.C. § 1112. This was 
well after the alleged effort in 1985 to convert the proceeding 
which is the focus of INSLAW's allegations and after those 
allegations were litigated before the Bankruptcy Court. 


bankruptcy proceeding; rather, he or she merely has the authority 
to petition the Bankruptcy Court to do so. However, it is 
undisputed that no such petition was ever made prior to 1987. 
Thus, if any effort to improperly convert INSLAW's bankruptcy was 
made, it proceeded only to the point that pressure to do so was 
brought to bear and fizzled before any step actually intended to 
effectuate that plan was taken. 

This point is important for several reasons. First, even if 
the weight of the evidence supported INSLAW's allegation that 
Justice Department officials attempted to convert the bankruptcy 
proceeding (which it does not) , it is clear that INSLAW was not 
in any way harmed by that effort. INSLAW did not even begin to 
allege that such an effort took place until after the Hamiltons 
had breakfast with Anthony Pasciuto in 1987 , two years after the 
alleged conduct took place. There is no evidence, and none is 
alleged to exist by INSLAW, that INSLAW was hindered by these 
alleged efforts or that the bankruptcy proceedings before Judge 
Bason were prejudiced against INSLAW in any way as a result. 

Second, the fact that no conversion motion was ever filed 
during that period seems to indicate, we think, either that no 
such efforts ever actually took place or that the system actually 
worked quite well on behalf of INSLAW. The process of filing a 
motion to convert a Chapter 11 proceeding to a Chapter 7 
liquidation is a simple and routine matter. If a conspiracy 
existed involving high-level Department officials of the type 
described by INSLAW, it is difficult to believe that the 


conspiracy would not be able to cause such a motion to be filed. 
The fact no motion was filed, therefore, seems to be more 
consistent with a scenario in which no such conspiracy existed. 

Conversely, if there were improper efforts to convert the 
proceeding and those efforts failed, it seems to be an indication 
not that INSLAW's proceedings were unfairly prejudiced by 
activities undertaken by Department of Justice officials with 
improper motives, but that INSLAW was actually protected from 
such improper influences. There is no question that it would be 
inappropriate (and perhaps illegal) for a Department of Justice 
official to seek a bankruptcy conversion in order, on the 
relatively benign side, to further his or her own career (as the 
Senate Staff concluded Thomas Stanton, the Director of the 
Executive Office of U.S. Trustees, may have done) or, on the more 
fantastic side, to further a conspiracy to destroy a company and 
steal its most important asset. The fact that such efforts 
failed to result in even the filing of a motion indicates that, 
to the extent these pressures existed, the United States Trustee 
was able to insulate and protect the bankruptcy system, in 
general, and INSLAW, in particular, from them. 36 

(2) There is no direct evidence that anyone from the 
Department of Justice requested or pressured Mr. Stanton to 

36 According to INSLAW, EOUST Director Stanton sought to 
reassign Harry Jones, an experienced bankruptcy attorney, from 
the U.S. Trustee's office in New York to the U.S. Trustee's 
office in Washington, D.C., in order to cause the conversion. 

Not only was no motion ever filed, Mr. Jones was never 
transferred to Washington. In fact, Mr. Jones testified that he 
was never even asked to move to Washington on detail. 


convert the INSLAW proceeding. Everyone involved directly with 
the alleged efforts — Mr. Stanton, Jack Rugh, former U.S. 

Trustee William White, Assistant U.S. Trustee Harry Jones — deny 
that any such pressure was applied. There is no proof whatsoever 
that any senior Department of Justice official ever pressured Mr. 
Stanton . 

Furthermore, the testimony of Judge Cornelius Blackshear 
that Mr. White had told him that Mr. Stanton had pressured him to 
convert INSLAW's bankruptcy was subsequently recanted by Judge 
Blackshear. Although the circumstances surrounding that 
recantation raise numerous questions, it is clear that, at the 
very least. Judge Blackshear’ s original testimony is called into 
considerable doubt. Furthermore, unlike the case with Anthony 
Pasciuto's change in testimony , 37 it is unclear what motive Judge 
Blackshear would have for changing his testimony. At the time he 
changed his testimony, he had already become a bankruptcy judge. 
Given his plausible explanation for the recantation, and the 
absence of any compelling evidence to the contrary, we believe 
that the benefit of the doubt must go in favor of Judge 

37 Mr. Pasciuto testified before Judge Bason that he did not 
recall telling the Hamiltons that EOUST Director Thomas Stanton 
had pressured the regional U.S. Trustee to convert the. INSLAW 
case as claimed by the Hamiltons. He further testified that he 
had no personal knowledge of any effort to convert the bankruptcy 
and, if he had claimed any to the Hamiltons, he did so in order 
to hurt Mr. Stanton. Following a recommendation by the Office of. 
Professional Responsibility that he be fired, Mr. Pasciuto 
recanted his testimony and claimed that everything he had told 
the Hamiltons was true and that Mr. Stanton had, in fact, 
pressured the regional U.S. Trustee. 


I. There Is No Credible Evidence that the Department of Justice 

Obstructed the Reappointment of Bankruptcy Judge George 


George Bason was appointed to serve as the United States 
bankruptcy judge in the District of Columbia on February 8, 1984 
following the retirement of Judge Roger Whelan. His term expired 
on February 8, 1988. Although Judge Bason sought reappointment 
to a 14 year term, the Merit Selection Panel, chaired by U.S. 
District Court Judge Norma Holloway Johnson, identified another 
attorney as its top choice for the position on November 24, 1987. 
On December 15, 1987, the Judicial Council recommended the top 
three names on the Merit Selection Panel's list to the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. The Court of 
Appeals selected Martin S. Teel, a Justice Department attorney, 
for the position on December 21, 1987, thus foregoing the 
reappointment of Judge Bason. 

Shortly thereafter. Judge Bason began to allege that the 
Justice Department improperly influenced the selection process 
and, ultimately, blocked his reappointment in retaliation for his 
September 1987 oral ruling in the IN SLAW case. Judge Bason and 
INSLAW maintain that proof that the selection process was 
unfairly influenced by the Department can be found in the 
following facts, among others: Judge Johnson once shared an 
office with Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart Schiffer; 
Judge Bason's administrative skills and record were unfairly 
criticized; one of Mr. Hamilton's children allegedly overheard a 
Department attorney state in early 1987 that “We've got to get 

- 99 

rid of this judge"; and the Justice Department sought Judge 
Bason's recusal from the case in January 1988 (after Judge Bason 
had written to then Chief Judge Patricia Wald of the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the D.C. circuit suggesting the Department had 
improperly influenced the process) . These allegations have been 
fueled by Mr. Hamilton's claim that a "senior U.S. government 
official" who demands anonymity told him that he knows of the 
involvement of certain officials in denying Judge Bason's 
reappointment . 

Following an extensive review of the allegations made by 
Judge Bason and Mr. Hamilton regarding the selection process f see 
Bua Report 153-189) , the special Counsel concluded that "the 
great weight of the evidence clearly supports the conclusion that 
there was no attempt by DOJ to obstruct Judge Bason's 
reappointment." f id. 188-189.) The Special Counsel also pointed 
out that two highly respected federal judges at the center of the 
selection process and the decision not to reappoint Judge Bason 
— Judge Wald and Judge Johnson — unequivocally deny that the 
Justice Department obstructed or attempted to obstruct the 
reappointment of Judge Bason, f id. 188.) 

The Senate staff reached a similar conclusion: "The Staff 
found no proof that the Department of Justice attempted to 
influence the selection process so as to deny Judge Bason 
reappointment." (Senate Staff Report 57.) The report of the House 
Judiciary Committee did not state any conclusion on this subjecti 
However, the Committee did state that it "could not substantiate 


Judge Bason's allegations." (House Report 103.) 

We carefully reviewed the criticisms of the Special 
Counsel's Report contained in INSLAW's Rebuttal on the 
reappointment issue. ( See INSLAW Rebuttal 72-80.) We found those 
comments to be rambling and incoherent. The criticisms are 
nothing more than innuendo and conjecture, often merely the 
repetition of suggestions of impropriety that were addressed and 
rejected in the Special Counsel’s Report. They are not 

There is, however, one issue raised by INSLAW that warrants 
some comment. INSLAW notes that Judge Johnson apparently told 
Senate investigators that she "had no contacts with DOJ regarding 
Judge Bason" during the selection process and that she 
subsequently informed the Special Counsel that she recalled 
receiving a transcript of Judge Bason's oral ruling in the INSLAW 
proceeding from Judge Royce Lamberth, who at the time was the 
Chief of the civil Division for the U.S. Attorney's Office for 
the District of Columbia. Judge Johnson initially failed to 
recall the contact with Judge Lamberth in discussions with the 
Special Counsel as well: 

Judge Johnson initially recalled to us that it was one 
of the district judges who recommended that she obtain a 
copy of the transcript of Judge Bason's oral ruling in 
Inslaw . Because information presented to the Panel was 
viewed as confidential, Judge Johnson initially declined to 
disclose the judge who directed her to the Inslaw ruling 
without first consulting that person. Upon contacting the 
judge who she believed provided the information, she 
discovered that she had been mistaken. It was not that 
judge who directed her to Bason's ruling; it was District 
Court Judge Royce Lambreth (sic]. 

(Bua Report 156-157.) Although it appears that at the time Judge 
Lamberth brought the September 28, 1987 INSLAW ruling to Judge 
Johnson's attention he was still employed at the U.S. Attorney's 
Office, he had, in fact, already been nominated to the federal 
bench and was sworn in shortly thereafter, on November 16, 1987. 
We do not believe that Judge Johnson's credibility is called into 
any doubt as suggested by INSLAW as a result of these events. 

After carefully reviewing the records maintained by both the 
Special Counsel and the House Committee and INSLAW's comments, we 
concur with the opinion of the Special Counsel that there is no 
evidence of any effort by the Justice Department to improperly 
influence the bankruptcy judge selection process. 

J. Conclusion 

After spending considerable time and resources reviewing the 
allegations made by INSLAW and its principals concerning a far 
flung conspiracy by Department of Justice officials and others to 
steal their software in order to distribute it throughout the 
U.S. government and around the world, we are struck by one major 
observation: the lack of any credible evidence to support those 
charges. It has been over 12 years since the Department of 
Justice and INSLAW first entered into a contract for the 
installation of PROMIS in the various U.S. Attorneys' offices, 
and still we are unaware of any facts that would lead us to 
believe any significant part of INSLAW's various conspiracy 


INSLAW has relied on three principal sources of information 
(along with a significant amount of totally unfounded conjecture, 
speculation, and perhaps imagination) to fuel its fight against 
the United States government. First , it has repeatedly referred 
to the testimony of anonymous sources, all of whom are invariably 
described as "reliable, " who refuse to cooperate with our 
investigation for fear of reprisal. Despite assurances from the 
Attorney General communicated to INSLAW's counsel, none of these 
alleged individuals came forward during our review. 

Nevertheless, to the extent we felt it was warranted, we 
attempted to Verify the alleged claims of these anonymous 
sources. Those efforts revealed that virtually none of what 
these alleged sources claimed could be verified. As a result, we 
conclude that either these sources do not exist, they lack any 
first-hand knowledge of the facts to which they allegedly 
testified or INSLAW has inaccurately characterized the 
information which they possess. 

Second . INSLAW relies on the testimony of a few patently 
untrustworthy individuals. The basis for INSLAW's conspiracy 
claims rests with the stories of Ari Ben-Menashe and Michael 
Riconosciuto. It is difficult to imagine a less credible pair. 
Two separate congressional investigations found Ben-Menashe to 
lack credibility. 

Material Omitted Pursuant to 
Rule 6(e) of Fed. R. Crim. Proc. 


Mr. Riconosciuto is no more deserving of our trust. The 
federal judge who sentenced him to 30 years in prison on a drug 
conviction remarked on his inability to separate fact from 
fiction. These individuals are so lacking in credibility and 
their charges have received so little corroboration, it is 
difficult to believe that INSLAW’s principals truly believe their 

And third . INSLAW has identified a very small number of 
additional individuals who have no direct evidence of any 
conspiracy but purportedly are privy to circumstantial evidence 
of the same. Though these individuals do not suffer from the 
same credibility problems of Mr. Riconosciuto and Mr. Ben- 
Menashe, it is remarkable that virtually every one of them has a 
clear and undeniable personal agenda. For example, Margaret 
Weincek has a suit pending against Dr. Earl Brian and his 
companies alleging wrongful discharge; John Belton, the former 
Canadian stockbroker, has spent much of the past decade suing his 
former employer and Dr. Brian, alleging constructive dismissal 
and conspiracy to commit stock fraud; and Reynaldo Liboro, the 
former office manager for INSLAW's bankruptcy counsel who claims 
that firm was involved in a conspiracy to drive INSLAW out of 
business, is currently serving a five-year sentence for 
embezzling funds from that very firm. Although we did not try to 
verify all of the claims made by these individuals, we were 
unable to verify those that we did investigate. 


In contrast, INSLAW's charges have been categorically denied 
by everyone that was allegedly involved in the various 
conspiracies. We are mindful of the fact that we would expect 
conspirators to deny their involvement in an illegal conspiracy. 
However, we do not accept INSLAW's basic premise that the denial 
of involvement in a conspiracy following unsubstantiated charges 
that such a conspiracy exists is proof of both the conspiracy and 
that individual's involvement. After 12 years, it is time to put 
an end to the bizarre logic — a sort of strange Orwellian 
version of Lewis Carroll reasoning — that has given life to 
these charges for so long. 

INSLAW has provided us with no credible direct evidence of a 
conspiracy of the type that they allege. Nor is there any 
significant documentary evidence of such a conspiracy. Finally, 
nearly all of the circumstantial evidence which INSLAW puts 
forward withers under scrutiny. 

If, on the other hand, one were to accept all of INSLAW's 
conspiracy charges, then one would have to believe that all of 
the following individuals, along with many others, committed 
perjury in sworn statements, lied to federal or Congressional 
investigators or, in a few cases, were unwitting pawns in the 
perpetuation of the conspiracy; 

Judge Patricia Wald of the United States Court of 
Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit 

District Judge Norma Holloway Johnson 

District Judge D. Lowell Jensen 

Vice Admiral D. M. Bennett, U.S. Navy Inspector General 


Deputy Assistant Attorney General Mark Richard 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Janis Sposato 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General John Keeney 

Deputy Assistant Attorney General Stuart Schiffer 

Deputy Assistant Director for the FBI's Technical Services 
Division Kier T. Boyd 

Department of the Interior Administrative Law Judge James L. 

Former Acting FBI Director John Otto 

Former CIA Deputy Director Richard Kerr 

Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Knapp 

Former Indio, California Police Chief Sam Cross 

Former Jerusalem District Attorney Joseph Ben Orr 

Professor Dorothy Denning 

Professor Randall Davis 

James Johnston 

Phillip White 

Gordon Zacrep 

Louise Goldsworthy 

Philip Cammera 

Sandra Spooner 

Dominic Laiti 

Paul Wormeli 

Marilyn Titus 

Marilyn Jacobs 

Jonathan Ben Cnaan 

Daniel Tessler 


Richard D'Amore 

Patricia Cloherty 
James Walker 
Floyd Bankson 

We have no reason to question the truthfulness of the 
individuals included in the above list. It should also be noted 
that the list is not exclusive, there are many other credible 
individuals who have denied various of INSLAW's allegations. 

V. The Weight of the Evidence Indicates that J. Daniel Casolaro 
Committed Suicide 38 

Joseph Daniel {"Danny") Casolaro was a free-lance writer who 
had been working on a story involving alleged links between 
various Washington ’'scandals" of the 1980s, including INSLAW, the 
Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) , the October 
Surprise, the Iran-Contra affair, the Iraqi arms procurement 
network, and the collapse of the savings and loan industry. Mr. 
Casolaro’ s theory was that these scandals had all been the 
handiwork of a shadowy group of people whom he referred to as the 
"Octopus." Casolaro began working on the story full-time in mid- 

3 * We are aware of the pain and suffering the family and 
friends of a suicide victim must experience. While we are 
obligated to revisit the difficult circumstances surrounding Mr. 
Casolaro 's death as the result of the controversy involving 
INSLAW's relationship to the Department of Justice, we sincerely 
regret any additional pain this review may cause his family. 


On Saturday, August 10, 1991, Mr. Casolaro was found dead in 
room 517 of the Sheraton Inn located in Martinsburg, West 
Virginia. His body was in the bathtub, and both of his wrists 
had been slashed. After a brief investigation at the scene, the 
local police department and the county coroner concluded that the 
cause of death was suicide. The coroner released the body to a 
local funeral home, where the body was embalmed. The Martinsburg 
Police Department sent a teletype to the Fairfax County Police 
Department in Northern Virginia requesting that Mr. Casolaro' s 
relatives be notified of his death. 

Mr. Casolaro 's relatives, however, were not notified until 
Monday morning, August 12, 1991. His brother, a Fairfax county 
physician, told the Martinsburg police at that time about Mr. 
Casolaro 's work on the "Octopus" story and suggested that many 
people would have had a motive to kill him. He explained that 
Mr. Casolaro had told people he was travelling to Martinsburg to 
meet a key source. He also insisted that an autopsy be conducted 
and questioned how Mr. Casolaro' s body could have been embalmed 
so quickly, without either the knowledge or consent of Mr. 
Casolaro *s family. Soon after the call from Mr. Casolaro 1 s 
brother, the Martinsburg Police Department was deluged with 
inquiries from the news media, from friends of Mr. Casolaro and 
from congressional investigators. A series of questions were 
raised about the cause and circumstances of Mr. Casolaro 's death. 

Faced with this sudden and intense public interest in the 
case, # the West Virginia authorities ordered an autopsy. The West 


Virginia Deputy Chief Medical Examiner performed the autopsy on 
August 13-14, 1991, and determined the cause of death as suicide. 
The autopsy also disclosed that Mr. Casolaro had been suffering 
from multiple sclerosis and arteriosclerosis. The autopsy found 
no evidence suggesting that he had been murdered. 

The autopsy findings, however, did little to quell the 
controversy over Casolaro' s death. The media and others raised 
many questions about the circumstances of his death and the 
adequacy of both the police investigation and the autopsy. Many 
suggested that Mr. Casolaro had been murdered because he was 
about to expose the "truth" about the "Octopus." Various 
theories appeared in the media about "who killed Danny Casolaro." 

Faced with these continuing questions about its 
investigation, the Martinsburg Police Department reopened the 
case and conducted a second, more intensive investigation. On 
January 25, 1992, West Virginia authorities announced that their 
additional investigation had led to the conclusion that Mr. 
Casolaro indeed had committed suicide, and that the case was 

Rumors and speculation continued to circulate despite the 
conclusions reached by the Martinsburg police. On September 10, 
1992, the House Judiciary Committee issued its report on the 
INSLAW affair. The report raised many questions about the 
circumstances of Mr. Casolaro' s death and recommended the 
appointment of an Independent Counsel to investigate six specific 
issues involving INSLAW, including "the lingering doubts over 


certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the death of Daniel 
Casolaro. " 

After reviewing the Nartinsburg Police Department's 
investigation of Mr. Casolaro's death, the Special Counsel 
concluded that there was no basis for challenging the conclusion 
that he had committed suicide. (Bua Report 246-250.) In its 
rebuttal, INSLAW was highly critical of the Special Counsel's 
review of this matter and was particularly critical of the 
Special Counsel's failure to interview certain witnesses. 

In light of the intense media focus and the concerns raised 
by the House Judiciary Committee, we undertook a substantial 
review and investigation of the circumstances surrounding Mr. 
Casolaro's death. Based on that review and investigation, we 
conclude that Mr. casolaro committed suicide. 

A. Scope of Review 

Our review consisted of two phases. During the first phase, 
we reviewed in detail the West Virginia investigations into Mr. 
Casolaro's death. We reviewed all the police reports and the 
autopsy report as well as the documents generated during an 
unsuccessful lawsuit the Casolaro family filed against the 
coroner and the funeral home regarding the embalming of 
Casolaro's body. Included among those documents were the sworn 
depositions, taken by the Casolaro family's attorneys, of the 
coroner and funeral home personnel. We also interviewed the 
police officers involved in the investigation of Mr. Casolaro's 


death as well as the Deputy Chief Medical Examiner who had 
conducted the autopsy. 

During the second phase of the review, we pursued various 
questions that had been raised in the media and in the House 
Judiciary Committee Report and attempted to answer other 
questions raised by casolaro's family. During this phase, we 
conducted numerous interviews of Casolaro's friends, family and 
associates in Virginia, West Virginia, Washington, D.C., Maryland 
and California. We obtained documents from various sources 
throughout the United States, including many of Mr. Casolaro's 
personal papers on file at the Investigative Reporters' and 
Editors' Association at the University of Missouri. 

We also obtained much of the physical evidence originally 
found in the hotel room and elsewhere and had the FBI laboratory 
conduct additional tests on some of that evidence. We examined 
Mr. Casolaro's background and had the FBI's Behavioral Sciences 
Unit at the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia conduct an 
equivocal death analysis, or "psychological autopsy." Other 
experts were consulted as well, including a former President of 
the National Academy of Forensic Sciences and a George Washington 
University Law Professor who had previously reviewed the Casolaro 
autopsy report on behalf of a group of Washington-based 

We also reviewed documents at the Central Intelligence 
Agency and at FBI headquarters. In addition, we met with the 
Hamiltons and INSLAW's counsel, received documents and other 


information from them and followed various leads they provided. 
Finally, we reviewed all the telephone calls and mail received by 
the producers of the television program "Unsolved Mysteries," 
following the airing on March 11, 1993 of a segment about Mr. 
Casolaro's death. 

B. Casolaro's Death 

1. Discovery of the Body 

Mr. Casolaro arrived at the Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg, 

West Virginia on Thursday, August 8, 1991. He was supposed to 
have checked out from his room, number 517, by 12:00 p.m. on 
Saturday, August 10, 1991. At about 12:59 p.m., Sharon Palmer, 
the maid assigned to cleaning the fifth floor, knocked on Mr. 
Casolaro's door and got no answer. She used her passkey to enter 
the room. She noticed the bathroom door was halfway open. She 
looked inside and saw blood on the floor and blood on a towel. 

She did not go inside the bathroom, but left and called for help. 
Another maid, Linda Williams, arrived and saw the blood on the 
bathroom floor, but did not enter the bathroom. Ms. Williams 
left and returned with hotel employees Barbara Bettinger, David 
Avella, Sandy Bogert, and Eric Weidman. Mr. Avella called the 

Minutes later Patrolman Glenn Macher of the Martinsburg City 
Police Department arrived. He ordered all the hotel employees 
who had just been inside the room to go the hotel manager's 
office and wait to be interviewed by other officers. The 


patrolman then went inside Mr. Casolaro's room. Within minutes, 
Martinsburg Police Captain Ted Anderson, Detective John McMillen, 
Patrolmen Shannon Armel and Terry Stanley and paramedics arrived. 

2 • The Death Scene 

Casolaro's Body 

According to police reports and witnesses we interviewed, 

Mr. Casolaro's nude body was in the bathtub. The water was 
bloody and cold. The tub was about half to three -fourths full. 
Mr. Casolaro was sitting with his feet toward the faucet. He was 
leaning against the side of the tub with his head slumped over 
the side. His right arm was hanging over the side of the tub, 
and his right hand was lying flat on the floor. His left hand 
was submerged under water, tucked beneath his left thigh. Both 
of Mr. Casolaro's wrists had cut wounds. The fingernails on the 
thumb, forefinger and middle finger of his right hand appeared to 
have been chewed. 

A used shoelace was draped loosely around Mr. Casolaro's 
neck. Another used shoelace was found inside the bathtub. Two 
white hefty trash bags were floating in the bathtub. A single- 
edge razor blade was inside the bathtub. An empty can of 
Milwaukee's Best beer was also inside the tub. 

The Bathroom 

The wrapper from the razor blade was resting against the 
side of the bathtub. Next to the bathtub, on the bathroom floor, 
there was a broken drinking glass and a half-full bottle of 
"Caves Alianca,** a Portuguese white wine. There was a bloody 

towel on the floor next to the tub. There were bloodstains on 
the tile around the tub, on the bathroom floor and on the toilet 
seat. Some bloody water had splattered across the small bathroom 
to the sink area. 

There was an ashtray on top of the toilet tank. Three 
cigarette butts were in the ashtray, and a pack of Carlton 
cigarettes was on the toilet tank next to the ashtray. The 
bathroom was later dusted for fingerprints. Two prints removed 
from the bathroom sink were identified later as Casolaro's left 
index and left middle fingers. 

There was no sign of any struggle having occurred inside the 

The Bedroom 

The police inspected the bedroom area. They found no sign 
of forced entry, no sign of any struggle inside the room, and no 
sign that anyone else had been inside the room. The door to the 
adjoining room (room 515, occupied by two visitors from 
Pennsylvania who had come to Martinsburg for a soccer tournament, 
a 7 2 -year old woman and 70 year-old man) was locked, and the 
safety chain was secure. The bedspread was partially turned 
down, but the sheets were not turned down. There was no blood in 
any part of the hotel room other than the bathroom. 

Mr. Casolaro's clothes were laid out on top of the bed. 

None of the fixtures in the room had been broken or knocked over. 
Mr. Casolaro's personal effects appeared to be intact. His 
wallet and driver's license were found inside his coat pocket. 


There was no sign that anyone had gone through any of Mr. 

Casolaro 's belongings. The police described the scene as 
••quiet . H 

There was an unused ashtray inside the bedroom. It had a 
fingerprint on the bottom, but the police were unable to identify 
that fingerprint. The trash can inside the bedroom contained a 
Sheetz Convenience Store coffee cup. On top of it were five 
empty cans of Milwaukee's Best beer,. The police later conducted 
hair and fiber analyses on various items recovered in the room, 
but no evidence was developed indicating that anyone other than 
Mr. Casolaro had been inside the room before he died. 

The police found a large black tote back in the bedroom. 
Inside the bag were, among other items, an empty bottle of 
Vicodin pills (which the police later determined had been 
prescribed for relief of pain following oral surgery performed on 
Mr. Casolaro in 1988) ; one box of Hefty trash bags (with two bags 
missing) ; two green lawn-type garbage bags; one unopened bottle 
of "Caves Alianca" white wine; one corkscrew; and three packs of 
Carlton cigarettes. 

The police found, on the coffee table, a box of razor blades 
with four unused single-edge blades inside. The box had room for 
five blades. The blades matched the single blade found inside 
the tub. 

The police did not find a briefcase or any documents in the 
hotel room. They did find various credit card receipts, 
including two receipts from the nearby Stone Crab Inn for 


Thursday, August 8 and Friday, August 9. 

The Suicide Note 

The police also found a suicide note, written on the fourth 
page of a legal pad sitting on the coffee table, next to the box 
of razor blades. The top three pages in the pad were blank and 
had been folded over the top and underneath the back of the legal 
pad. The note said: 

To my loved ones, Please forgive me — most especially 

my son — and be understanding, God will let me in. 

The police later determined through handwriting and ink 
comparisons that Mr. Casolaro wrote the note with a pen that was 
on the coffee table near the legal pad. His right thumbprint was 
the only fingerprint found on the legal pad. 39 

Casolaro 1 s Car 

The police found Mr. Casolaro* s car keys and located his 
car, a 1981 Honda Accord, in the Sheraton hotel parking lot. 

There was no sign that the car had been broken into or searched. 
They lifted two of Mr. Casolaro* s fingerprints from the driver's 
side window. They also found a pack of Carlton cigarettes in the 
car. The car was impounded and sent to a local body shop for 

39 Some individuals have suggested that Mr. Casolaro may 
have been forced to write the suicide note, and that he was 
leaving a clue by making the note uncharacteristically brief and 
by the reference to God "letting him in." Proponents of this 
theory note that, as a Catholic, Mr. Casolaro would have known 
that suicide was a sin, so he must have used that phrase to tip 
his friends that he was not dying voluntarily. We uncovered no 
evidence supporting this theory. 

116 - 

3 . Interviews of Hotel Employees 

While the patrol officers were examining the hotel room, 
Captain Anderson and Detective McMillen interviewed the hotel 
employees who had discovered Casolaro's body. None of the 
employees, including the maids, had seen anything suspicious that 
morning. None had seen anyone enter or leave Mr. Casolaro's 
room. The last employee who had seen Mr. Casolaro alive was 
Barbara Bettinger, who had talked with him outside his room 
Friday afternoon. 

4 . The Coroner's Investigation 

Thirty minutes after the police arrived, Berkeley County 
coroner Sandra Brining and her husband, Martinsburg city 
paramedic David Brining, entered room 517. Mr. Brining 
photographed Mr. Casolaro's body and the bathroom area. Ms. 
Brining examined the body. She noted eight cuts on the underside 
of Casolaro's left wrist and four cuts on the underside of his 
right wrist. There was also a bruise on the inner part of the 
upper left arm. There were no other visible signs of trauma to 
the body. "Light" rigor mortis was present in both arms. Livor 
mortis was present, but had not yet set, in the buttocks, neck, 
face, arms and legs. 

During Ms. Brining 's examination of the body, the bloody 
bathtub water was drained. Ms. Brining failed to preserve a 
sample of the water. 

Ms. Brining classified the death as a suicide, and contacted 
Brown's Funeral Home in Martinsburg to transport the body. 


Funeral home employees John Arvin and Robert Fields arrived at 
room 517 at approximately 2:00 p.m. The bathroom door was 
removed to allow room for the body to be taken out of the room. 
The body was placed in an ambulance and taken to Brown's Funeral 
Home in Martinsburg. 

5. Handling of Death Scene Following Removal of Body 

After the body was removed, the Martinsburg police locked 

the room but failed to seal it formally. 

On Monday morning, August 12, 1991, Detectives Catlett and 
McMillen returned to room 517 to conduct a further investigation 
after Casolaro's family had alerted them about Mr. Casolaro's 
work and the threats he had allegedly received. Although the 
police had not officially sealed the room when they left Saturday 
afternoon, the hotel manager, Sam Floyd, had kept the room locked 
for the remainder of Saturday and all day Sunday. Detective 
McMillen told us that the hotel room was in exactly the same 
condition as it had been when he and the other officers left it 
Saturday. The room had not been cleaned. According to the 
detective, nothing had been rearranged or disturbed. There was 
no sign that anyone had been inside the room. 

6. Examination and Embalming of the Body at the Funeral 


Ms. Brining spent two hours examining Mr. Casolaro's body at 
the funeral home on Saturday afternoon. Patrolman Armel arrived 
at Brown's Funeral Home at approximately 3:30 p.m. , after the 
examination had started. He watched as funeral home employee 
Robert Fields drew a blood sample directly from Casolaro's heart. 


Ms. Brining and Mr. Fields asked Patrolman Armel to notify Mr. 
Casolaro's next-of-kin. Patrolman Armel relayed that request to 
Detective McMillen, who had returned to the station. 

Patrolman Armel asked Ms. Brining for the cause of death, 
and she said that Mr. Casolaro had bled to death. She determined 
that the wounds to the wrists had been self-inflicted, and that 
the manner of death was suicide. 

As Ms. Brining and Patrolman Armel were preparing to leave, 
Charles Brown, the owner of Brown's Funeral Home, asked Ms. 
Brining if the body could be embalmed. Ms. Brining said that she 
was releasing the body to the funeral home, that an autopsy would 
not be conducted because the death was a suicide, and that the 
body could be embalmed. Mr. Fields then embalmed the body. 

The decision to permit the embalming of Casolaro's body 
before an autopsy could be performed has been the subject of much 
controversy in the press and elsewhere. We have concluded that 
the decision was not unreasonable in light of the physical 
evidence suggesting that Mr. Casolaro had committed suicide and 
the well-established practice in the Martinsburg area of 
performing “courtesy" embalmings for decedents from other 
localities. We also note, however, that Ms. Brining should have 
waited a few more hours before releasing the body to see whether 
Casolaro's next-of-kin had been notified. Under West Virginia 
law, a deceased's body may not be embalmed unless the authorities 
have first made “due inquiry" as to the desires of the next-of- 
kin. West Vir. Code Ann., § 30-6-8 (1993). As discussed in the 


next section, the Martinsburg Police requested the Fairfax County 
police to notify Casolaro's next-of-kin at 3:30 p.m., before the 
embalming. As described below, the Fairfax Police reported back 
at 5:00 p.m., after the embalming had started, that they had been 
unable to do so. Although Ms. Brining should have waited until 
after the Martinsburg police had heard back from the Fairfax 
County police, ultimately it made no difference as the body would 
have been embalmed once the Fairfax County police had reported 
they were unable to locate any next-of-kin. 

We are unaware of any evidence that suggests that the 
decision by Ms. Brining approving the embalming of the body was 
made to further any type of cover-up or conspiracy. 40 In fact, 
the decision appears to be consistent with the custom and 
practice in the Martinsburg area. During a lawsuit filed by 
Casolaro's family against Brown's Funeral Home, Berkeley County, 
and the City of Martinsburg, an attorney for Casolaro's family 
took the sworn deposition of Mr. Brown. In his deposition, Mr. 
Brown testified that "courtesy embalmings" are standard procedure 
in Martinsburg for decedents from other localities. f Casolaro, et 
al. . v. Brown Funeral Home, et al. . No. 92-C-721, Circuit Court 

40 The media have reported that Ms. Brining and Mr. Brown 
had a dispute over whether she had authorized him to embalm 
Casolaro's body. Our investigation found that they both agreed 
that she did authorize the embalming. In her deposition during 
an unsuccessful suit filed by the Casolaro family, Ms. Brining 
testified that, as she was leaving the funeral home, she told Mr: 
^rown that "the body is released." (Deposition of Sandra 
rising, Jan. 14, 1993 at 92). Mr. Brown then asked whether the 
Dd, could be embalmed, and Ms. Brining said yes. Mr. Brown 
^ni med Ms. Brining 's recollection. 


for Berkeley County, W. Va., Deposition of Charles Brown, 

Sept. 13, 1993, at 27, 35.) 

Furthermore, the embalming of the body did not have the 
adverse impact on the subsequent autopsy that has been 
speculated. Embalming typically precludes the ability to obtain 
accurate toxicological studies of bodily fluids. Here, however, 
the embalming did not interfere with the autopsy as the medical 
examiner and toxicologist had access to four separate bodily 
fluid samples and organs that had been unaffected by the 
embalming: (1) the blood sample that Mr. Fields had taken 

directly from Casolaro's heart, before the embalming had been 
performed; (2) a small amount of urine that had not been 
evacuated at the time of death because of the submersion of 
Casolaro's body in the bath water, and that had not been tainted 
due to Mr. Fields' failure to inject embalming fluid into the 
bladder; (3) a small amount of vitreous fluid from behind the eye 
sockets; and (4) the liver, which Mr. Fields had entirely missed 
when he failed to insert the trocar (embalming tool) into that 

7. Notification of Next ~of -Kin 

At 3:30 p.m. on Saturday, August 10, Detective McMillen 
called the Fairfax County (Virginia) Police Department and 
notified them of Mr. Casolaro's name, address, and apparent 
suicide. He requested that the Fairfax Police Department notify 
Mr. Casolaro's family. The Fairfax police said they could not do 
so unless they were notified by teletype. At 4:00 p.m.. 


Detective McMillen sent the requested teletype but received no 
acknowledgement. A few minutes later he sent a second teletype. 

According to police records, a Fairfax County patrol car 
drove to Mr. Casolaro's house at approximately 4:30 p.m. The 
officer knocked. When no one answered, the officer left his 
business card on Mr. Casolaro's door. The officer returned to 
the station and called Detective McMillen at 5:00 p.m. Detective 
McMillen asked the officer to attempt to notify Casolaro's next- 
of-kin and to ask them to contact the Martinsburg police to 
provide instructions regarding funeral arrangements. 

Inexplicably, the Fairfax County police made no effort to 
locate any of Mr. Casolaro's relatives, other than going to his 
house and leaving a business card. Fairfax police would have 
found the name of Dr. Tony Casolaro, Mr. Casolaro's brother, in 
the local phone book if they had looked. The anguish that was 
ultimately caused by the belated notification could easily have 
been and should have been avoided. 

Finally, on Monday, August 12, the Martinsburg police 
authorities did what the Fairfax police department should have 
done two days earlier. Detective Sergeant Swartwood called 
directory assistance for Fairfax County, received the listing for 
Dr. Tony Casolaro, and called the number. Mr. Casolaro's mother 
was at Dr. Casolaro's house and answered the phone. Detective 
Sergeant Swartwood notified Mrs. Casolaro of her son's death at 
that time. 


C. The Autopsy 

Shortly after Mr. Casolaro's family was notified of his 
death. Dr. Tony casolaro informed West Virginia authorities that 
his brother had been working on a sensitive story and that he had 
received death threats. Dr. Casolaro urged the police to conduct 
an autopsy. Detective Sergeant Swartwood relayed this 
information to Ms. Brining who agreed to contact the West 
Virginia Deputy Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. James L. Frost, to 
arrange for an autopsy. Casolaro's body was moved to Morgantown, 
West Virginia on Tuesday, August 13, 1991. That afternoon. Dr. 
Frost conducted preliminary and fluoroscopic examinations of the 
body. The results were negative. The next morning, August 14, 
1991, Ms. Brining, Patrolman Armel, and Patrolman Stambaugh 
traveled to Morgantown to observe the autopsy. 

The summary of the findings of the autopsy that follows is 
based on a review of the autopsy report and interviews of Dr. 
Frost and others who were involved with or observed the autopsy. 

Dr. Frost spent a considerable amount of time examining Mr. 
Casolaro's wrists. The undersides of both wrists had deep cuts, 
though the depth was not extraordinary for a suicide, according 
to Dr. Frost. The angles of the cuts were consistent with the 
wounds being self-inflicted. Mr. Casolaro was right-handed. 

There were four cuts on Casolaro's right wrist and eight on his 
left. According to Dr. Frost, Mr. Casolaro probably made the 
cuts on his left wrist first. The uppermost cut on the left 
wrist appeared to be a superficial cut. Dr. Frost told us that 


the superficial cut on the left wrist was not consistent with a 
so-called "hesitation cut," something that certain forensic 
pathologists look for in suicide cases. In Dr. Frost's view, the 
lack of a hesitation cut could be cited as evidence that the 
victim was particularly determined to commit suicide. 

The autopsy revealed that Mr. Casolaro injured one of the 
tendons in his left wrist with a particularly deep cut. However, 
that injury would not have deprived him of the motor ability in 
his left hand to grasp the razor and cut his right wrist. 
According to Dr. Frost, that is exactly what Mr. Casolaro did. 

The other cuts were also deep, but not so deep as to be 
suspicious, according to Dr. Frost. 

The autopsy found no indications that Mr. Casolaro had been 
involved in a struggle. Three of the fingernails on his right 
hand had been chewed. Mr. Casolaro 's brother. Dr. Tony Casolaro, 
told us that his brother did not bite his nails. However, the 
autopsy uncovered no evidence that anyone else bit his nails or 
that he had bitten the nails during a struggle in the hotel room. 
There was also a faint contusion on Mr. Casolaro 's left anterior 
bicep. Dr. Frost determined that the bruise was probably caused 
two days before Mr. Casolaro* s death. There were other faint 
blue marks and contusions on the body, but those were determined 
to be postmortem skin discolorations caused by the embalming 
process . 

Dr. Frost also noted during the autopsy that Mr. Casolaro' s 
onque was normal, indicating that he did not appear to have 


ingested any foreign substance. There was no indication of force 
having been applied to his mouth or lips. There was no sign of 
choking, strangulation, or drowning. No water was found in Mr. 
Casolaro's lungs. 

The neuropathologist, Dr. Sydney S. Schochet, examined 
Casolaro's brain and determined that he had been suffering from 
multiple sclerosis. Dr. Schochet opined that Mr. Casolaro 
probably had been experiencing vision problems. In addition, 
the autopsy revealed that Mr. Casolaro was suffering from 
"moderately severe" arteriosclerosis. 

Dr. Frost determined that the cause of Mr. Casolaro's death 
was "exsanguinating hemorrhage from multiple incised wounds to 
the wrists." He concluded that the manner of death was suicide. 
He estimated that the time of death was between 7:00 a.m. and 
8:00 a.m. on Saturday, August 10, 1991. Dr. Frost told us that 
Mr. Casolaro probably lost consciousness within five to eight 
minutes of cutting himself and that he likely died within 15 

Dr. Frost also submitted the blood sample that had 
previously been taken from the heart, the urine and vitreous 
fluids and a liver sample (none of which had been tainted by the 
embalming fluids) to the West Virginia toxicology laboratory for 
analysis. The results of the toxicology studies did not alter 
Dr. Frost's conclusions as to the cause and manner of death. 
Rather they were fully consistent with suicide. 


The toxicology tests performed by Dr. Cash revealed several 
things. First . Mr. Casolaro had an alcohol content of .04 in his 
urine. According to Dr. Frost, that alcohol level is consistent 
with the metabolization rate for a man of Mr. Casolaro' s height 
and weight consuming the six beers found in the hotel room as 
well as some of the white wine during the night and early morning 
hours before his death. No alcohol was found in the blood sample 
taken from the heart. Second , trace amounts of the chemical 
components for Vicodin were found in some of the samples. As 
indicated above, an empty bottle of Vicodin was found in Mr. 
Casolaro' s luggage in the hotel room. And third , trace amounts 
of a tricyclic anti-depressant medication were also present. The 
tricyclic was never traced, and we were unable to determine its 
origins. However, the amount was insignificant. Dr. Cash also 
conducted a series of tests for the presence of a variety of 
"exotic" drugs or any other substance that could have been used 
to render Mr. Casolaro unconscious or that could have contributed 
to his death. All those tests were negative. 

Dr. Cash also tested the wine found in the open bottle 
adjacent to the bathtub for the presence of any drugs. That test 
was also negative. 41 

41 Several months after the autopsy was conducted, a group of 
journalists in Washington, D.C. asked Professor James E. Starrs, 
a noted forensic pathology expert at the George Washington 
University law school, to review Dr. Frost's autopsy report. 
Professor Starrs agreed to do so. In an interview with the 
Was hington Business Journal (week of Nov. 9-15, 1992, p. 13), 
rofessor Starrs stated that he agreed with Dr. Frost that Mr. 
tsc*aro's wounds had been self-inflicted. He also stated that 
doubted whether any additional scientific techniques would 


D. Additional Police Investigation 

After learning from Dr. Casolaro and others about the nature 
of Mr. Casolaro* s work and the threats that allegedly had been 
directed at him, the Martinsburg police began a more substantial 
investigation into the matter. We carefully reviewed the records 
of that investigation and conclude that it was sufficient given 
the nature of the allegations. Furthermore, we concur with the 
conclusion reached by the Martinsburg Police Department that the 
results of that investigation support the conclusion that Mr. 
Casolaro took his own life. 

The following is a summary of some of the important findings 
of that investigation: 

• The police located and interviewed the occupants of 
rooms 514, 515, 516, 519 and 520 on the night of 
August 9-10, 1991. None of the individuals staying in 
those rooms recalls hearing any unusual noises coming 
from room 517, Mr. Casolaro *s room, either that evening 
or the next morning. Nor did any of them recall seeing 
anyone entering or leaving room 517 during the morning 
of August 10. 

• The occupant of room 519, a man from St. Paul, 
Minnesota, had had several drinks with Mr. Casolaro on 
Thursday, August 8. Police noticed during their 
interview of him that his wrist was bandaged. He told 
the police officers conducting the interview that he 
had hurt himself playing volleyball. The officers were 
able to verify that story. 

have changed the outcome of the autopsy. Professor Starrs agreed 
with Dr. Frost that the small contusions on Casolaro' s body were 
caused by the embalming fluid, although he criticized the West 
Virginia authorities for embalming the body so quickly. 

Professor Starrs also noted that the suicide note was typical in 
that it was unsigned and made apologies to Casolaro 's family. 
Professor Starrs summarized his view of the case by saying, **[I]f 
this was a homicide, it would be the most singularly remarkable 
murder on record, either in fiction or nonfiction." 


• During the interviewing of all of the hotel employees 
who may have had contact with Mr. Casolaro, a front 
desk employee told the police that Mr. Casolaro may 
have had a brown briefcase when he checked into the 
hotel. No other hotel employee recalled seeing Mr. 
Casolaro with a briefcase. Police were unable to 
locate any briefcase or documents during searches of 
Mr. Casolaro' s hotel room, his car, the hotel or the 
area surrounding the hotel. 

• The hotel manager stated that there were six keys for 
room 517. One key was found in the room among Mr. 
Casolaro' s belongings during the initial search of the 
room on August 10. The remaining five keys were found 
at the front desk. 

• The razor blades found in the bathtub and in the 
bedroom were manufactured by Techni-Edge Manufacturing 
Corporation in New Jersey. Although they checked 
several retail outlets in the Martinsburg and Fairfax 
County areas, the Martinsburg police were unable to 
determine where the blades had been purchased. The 
West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory was unable 
to lift any fingerprints from the blade found in the 
bathtub because it had been immersed in water. (We 
asked the FBI laboratory to attempt to lift a 
fingerprint from the blade, but they too were unable to 
do so. ) 

• On August 21, 1991, during a search of Mr. Casolaro* s 
home, police found two unopened bottles of "Caves 
Alianca" white wine under the kitchen sink. The 
bottles matched those found in the bathroom of the 
hotel room and in Casolaro 's luggage. The Martinsburg 
police determined that the Giant Supermarket chain in 
Northern Virginia sells Caves Alianca wine. The brand 
is unavailable in West Virginia. 

• During their search of Mr. Casolaro 's house, the police 
found two tennis shoes from two different pairs — one 
Nike and one Reebok — that were each missing a 
shoelace. The shoes were in the closet in the upstairs 
bedroom. The police asked the West Virginia State 
Police Crime Laboratory to attempt to match the two 
laces found at the death scene with the two shoes from 
Mr. Casolaro' s house. The crime laboratory was unable 
to make a definite match, although a visual comparison 
of the laces and the shoes seemed to indicate that the 
eyelet marks on the laces matched the eyelets on the 
shoes. (We had the FBI laboratory conduct a variety of 
tests on the laces and the shoes to attempt to match 
them, but the results were inconclusive.) 


On August 29, 1991, and on September 27, 1991, the 
Martinsburg police received copies of a passport photo 
of Hassan Ali Ibrahim Ali from various individuals. 

This may have been the same photograph that Mr. 

Casolaro had shown to Ben Mason in his basement office 
on Wednesday, August 7. (See discussion below.) There 
is no evidence that Mr. Casolaro ever met Ibrahim, or 
that Ibrahim — whoever he is — had anything to do 
with Mr. Casolaro *s death. 

The West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory 
determined that the blood stains found in the bathroom 
in room 517 matched Mr. Casolaro' s blood. 

The West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory 
determined that the handwriting on the suicide note 
matched Casolaro *s known handwriting. The ink used to 
write the note matched the ink in the pen found next to 
the suicide note. Mr. Casolaro 's right thumbprint was 
found on the legal pad containing the suicide note. 

• The West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory 
determined that Casolaro' s fingerprints matched those 
lifted from the bathroom sink. The fingerprint found 
on the unused ashtray in the hotel bedroom could not be 

• The West Virginia State Police Crime Laboratory 
determined that the wine found in the open "Caves 
Alianca" bottle on the bathroom floor was untainted, as 
were the wine traces on the broken drinking glass on 
the bathroom floor. 

Blood Spatter Analysis 

In December 1991, the Martinsburg police and the Berkeley 
County Prosecuting Attorney asked Dr. Henry C. Lee, the Chief 
Criminalist at the Connecticut State Crime Laboratory and a 
nationally recognized blood spatter expert, to conduct a blood 
spatter analysis of the bathroom where the body had been found. 
The Martinsburg police provided Dr. Lee with the death scene 
photographs, as well as a videotaped reenactment of the death the 
police had prepared with Dr. Frost's assistance on December 12, 


1991 in the room where Mr. Casolaro had died. After reviewing 
Dr. Frost's autopsy report and other evidence, Dr. Lee created a 
three-dimensional photographic montage from the photographs taken 
of Casolaro *s body and the bathroom on August 10, 1991. Dr. Lee 
issued his report on January 24, 1992. 

Based on the pattern of the blood found in the bathroom. Dr. 
Lee theorized that Mr. Casolaro filled the tub with an amount of 
water; poured himself a drink of wine, and sat the glass on the 
side of the bathtub; sat down on the side of the bathtub; cut his 
wrists with the razor blade; and then sat inside the tub. Mr. 
Casolaro then probably got into the bathtub and placed one of the 
white hefty bags over his head as added insurance that he would 
die. (According to his close friend, Ann Klenk, Mr. Casolaro had 
discussed with her several months before his death how author 
Jerzy Koz inski had committed suicide in a bathtub by tying a 
plastic bag over his head.) 

Dr. Lee theorized that Mr. Casolaro next submerged his 
wrists into the water and bled into the water for a few moments. 
According to Dr. Lee, he probably became extremely uncomfortable 
with the bag over his head and pulled it off, flinging bloody 
water across the floor and to the sink opposite the bathtub. Mr. 
Casolaro then attempted to stand up in the tub, bracing himself 
against the tile wall. By that time, however, he had lost too 
much blood. According to Dr. Lee, he probably become woozy and 
slumped back into the tub, causing bloody water to slosh over the 
ide of the tub and onto the bathroom floor. As he fell back 


down into the tub, Mr. Casolaro's arm knocked the drinking glass 
onto the floor, where it broke. His right arm hung outside the 
tub as he slumped against the side of the tub. His head came to 
rest on the side of the tub. 

Dr. Lee concluded that the blood spatter analysis he had 
conducted established that Mr. Casolaro's death was "not 
inconsistent with a suicide." 

Financial Review 

The police also reviewed Mr. Casolaro's financial condition. 
They were unable to find any evidence that he had earned any 
income during the months before he died. When the Martinsburg 
police searched his house, they found his checkbook and checking 
account statements. The documents indicated that Mr. Casolaro 
had recently received loans from family members. 

The police also found a copy of the promissory note for Mr. 
Casolaro's house. The note indicated that a balloon payment of 
$178,790 was due August 9, 1991. The police checked with the 
mortgage company and learned that Mr. Casolaro had received a 30- 
day extension, to September 8, 1991, on the payment. The police 
also found Mr. Casolaro's July 1991 phone bill, in the amount of 

The Martinsburg police officially concluded their 
investigation on January 25, 1992, after expending over 1,000 
aggregate hours on the case. We believe that the criticisms 
directed at that investigation are not warranted. In our 
opinion, the Martinsburg City Police Department conducted a 


thorough, professional investigation. Although Ms. Brining 
should not have authorized the embalming of Casolaro's body 
before hearing back from the Fairfax County police and although 
the Martinsburg police should have sealed the hotel room, those 
mistakes had no significant adverse impact on the investigation. 
We also believe that Dr. Frost, Dr. Cash, and Dr. Schochet 
performed excellent autopsy, toxicology, and neuropathology 

E. Our Investigation 
1. " The Octopus " 

During our investigation into Mr. Casolaro's death, it 
became clear that many of the sources for Mr. Casolaro's theories 
about the government's involvement with INSLAW were the same as 
those identified by the Hamiltons, though Mr. Casolaro's theory 
of "the Octopus" involved an even more far-flung conspiracy than 
that advanced by INSLAW. In a November 1990 book proposal he 
provided to a New York literary agent, he described the 
conspirators as follows: 

An international cabal whose freelance services cover 
parochial political intrigue, espionage, sophisticated 
weapon technologies that include biotoxins, drug 
trafficking, money laundering and rourder-for-hire has 
emerged from an isolated desert Indian reservation just 
north of Mexicali. ... I propose a series of articles 
and a book, a true crime narrative, that unravels this 
web of thugs and thieves who roam the earth with their 
weapons and their murders, trading dope and dirty money 
for the secrets of the temple. 

At various times, the Octopus theory linked the INSLAW 


atter, the alleged connection of the Cabazon Indian reservation 


with international arms dealing, the assassination of "super gun" 
inventor Gerald Bull, the suicide bombing of the U.S. Marine 
barracks in Lebanon, the BCCI scandal, the Iran Contra affair, 
the Iraqi arms procurement network, the collapse of the savings 
and loan industry and other matters. 

Mr. Casolaro apparently first learned about INSLAW's dispute 
with the Justice Department in mid-1990 when Terry Miller, a 
friend, told him about the dispute and encouraged him to talk to 
the Hamiltons. By everyone's account, Mr. Casolaro became 
obsessed with the INSLAW story and the web of conspiracy 
allegations associated with it over the next few months. Mr. 
Casolaro soon began to develop his Octopus theory whereby the 
INSLAW affair was merely one arm of an octopus that had been 
engaged in international intrigue since the early 1950s. 

During the period from mid-1990 to his death, Mr. Casolaro 
took hundreds of pages of notes during his telephone calls with 
the Hamiltons and others. Mr. Casolaro' s close friend Ann Klenk 
found his notes in the basement office of his house the day his 
death was disclosed. Ms. Klenk provided the notes to Tara 
Sonenshine, a producer for ABC's Night line program. Ms. 
Sonenshine examined the notes and told Ms. Klenk that they did 
not appear to contain any clues about Mr. Casolaro 's death. 
Several other journalists looked at the notes and arrived at the 
same conclusion. Ms. Klenk sent the notes to the Investigative 
Reporters' and Editors' Association (IRE) at the University of 
Missouri, where they were catalogued and archived. We obtained a 


complete set of the notes from IRE. We also obtained copies of 
certain pages that Ms. Klenk had kept. 

We have carefully examined the notes, consisting of several 
hundred pages. The notes are filled with names, places, phone 
numbers, diagrams, and references to various international 
intrigues, including arms dealing, drug trafficking, chemical 
warfare, money laundering, terrorism and political 
assassinations. Some of the notes appear to have been taken 
during telephone conversations with various people, while other 
notes appear to reflect information obtained from newspaper 
articles and magazines. Finally, those notes indicate that Mr. 
Casolaro spent a considerable amount of time receiving and 
soliciting information from many of the same sources relied on by 
INSLAW: Michael Riconosciuto, Charles Hayes, Robert Booth 

Nichols, and others. 

2. August 5-10. 1991 

We spent a significant amount of time trying to reconstruct 
the last week of Mr. Casolaro* s life in the hope that such a 
reconstruction might lead to some answers about his death. The 
following reconstruction is based on numerous interviews, 
documentary evidence and police records. (Several of the 
statements attributed to various witnesses are based on police 
reports of interviews with those witnesses and do not reflect 
separate questioning by us.) 

Monday. August 5. 1991 

On Monday, August 5, Mr. Casolaro saw his brother, Dr. Tony 


Casolaro, during the day. Dr. Casolaro told us that he told his 
brother that he looked tired. Later that day, Ann Klenk saw Mr. 
Casolaro' s car parked outside a bar at a local shopping center. 
According to Ms. Klenk, she went inside and saw Mr. Casolaro, 
head slumped down, sitting at the bar. She said that Mr. 

Casolaro "looked terrible." He told her in a tone that Ms. Klenk 
described as disgust: "I just broke INSLAW. Bill Hamilton's 

going to be real excited." Mr. Casolaro then told Ms. Klenk, 

"You can have the story, and if you don't want it, you can give 
it to Jack Anderson." (Ms. Klenk had once worked as a reporter 
for syndicated columnist Jack Anderson) . Finally, Mr. casolaro 
told Ms. Klenk he had "just gotten back" from West Virginia and 
that he was going back again. 

Ms. Klenk said she was worried about her friend. She 
ordered a pizza for him, begged him to eat something and left. 

Tuesday. August 6. 1991 

On Tuesday, August 6, Mr. Casolaro again spoke to Ms. Klenk 
and discussed a book proposal he had sent to his agent two weeks 
earlier. Mr. Casolaro also had two phone calls that day with 
John Elvin, a journalist friend in Annapolis. According to Mr. 
Elvin, Mr. casolaro asked him during those two calls to review 
the "stuff" he had sent him. Mr. Casolaro mentioned that he was 
going to West Virginia and said he would call Mr. Elvin when he 
returned . 

Mr. Casolaro also called his friend Jim Pittaway that day 
and told him that he was going to West Virginia to meet someone. 

but that he did not know that person's identity. 

During the day, he spent some time packing a suitcase. 
According to Olga Mokros, Mr. Casolaro's neighbor and 
housekeeper, Mr. Casolaro told her while she was helping him pack 
that he would not be seeing his son again. Ms. Mokros also told 
us that he took her into his basement office and showed her where 
he kept his will. 

That evening, Mr. Casolaro had dinner at the home of Larry 
Stich, a former IBM attorney he had known for several years. Mr. 
Stich told us that Mr. Casolaro did not seem depressed to him. 

Mr. Stich recalls his friend telling him that evening that he was 
going to meet with "somebody" regarding his book project. 

After returning home, Mr. Casolaro called Robert Booth 
Nichols at his home in Los Angeles, speaking to him from 1:40 
a.m. until 2:46 a.m. EST. Mr. Booth Nichols told us that he 
remembers Mr. Casolaro mentioning that he was planning a trip to 
the Cabazon Indian Reservation in Southern California where he 
would "wrap up" his research. According to Mr. Booth Nichols, 

Mr. Casolaro sounded confident and not depressed. 

Wednesday, August 7. 1991 

On Wednesday, August 7, Ben Mason, a close friend, came over 
to Mr. Casolaro's house to visit. Mr. Mason told us that Mr. 
Casolaro was in an "exuberant" mood that day. Mr. Casolaro 
showed Mason some papers in his basement office and told him that 
the papers were in a specific order. Mr. Mason recalls seeing a 
Photocopy of a passport photo of a young man named "Ibrahim." 


While Mr. Mason was still there, Mr. Casolaro received a 
call from Anne Weinfield and her husband. They were leaving 
Washington to spend a few days at their beach house, and they 
customarily called Mr. Casolaro to say goodbye whenever they left 
town. Both Ms. Weinfield and her husband spoke with Mr. 

Casolaro. They both recall that during the conversation Ms. 
Weinfield told her husband that something was "definitely wrong" 
with their friend. Ms. Weinfield told us that Mr. Casolaro 
rambled incoherently and seemed to have lost touch with reality. 

Mr. Casolaro also spoke with his cousin. Dr. Louis Petrillo, 
a New York psychologist, that day. In a letter written ten days 
later, Dr. Petrillo wrote that Mr. Casolaro sounded 
"enthusiastic" on the phone, saying that he was "looking forward 
to meeting with a 'source.'" Dr. Petrillo noted in that letter 
that he had spoken frequently with his cousin during the months 
before his death, and that, in his judgment, he had not 
manifested "any symptoms or character traits . . . that could in 
any way be associated with a potential for suicide." 42 

That evening Mr. Casolaro and Ben Mason went out. Mr. 
Casolaro met a woman while they were at a hotel bar. At 2:00 
a.m., after taking Mr. Mason home, he returned to the hotel and 

42 We spoke with Dr. Petrillo more recently. He recalled 
the August 7, 1991 telephone call. With the benefit of 
hindsight. Dr. Petrillo now believes that Mr. Casolaro could very 
well have committed suicide. He stated that he was prepared to 
change the conclusions expressed in his August 17, 1991 letter 
based on what he now knew about the physical evidence and other 
circumstances surrounding Mr. Casolaro* s death. 


called the woman he had just met from the lobby phone to see if 
she would invite him to her room. She said no, and he returned 

Thursday. August 8. 1991 

According to Mr. Mason, Mr. Casolaro called him at 6:00 a.m. 
and told him of his failed attempt to rejoin the woman at the 
hotel. Mr. Casolaro laughed off the incident and told his friend 
he was going to West Virginia M to see the guys." 

At about 10:00 a.m., Mr. Casolaro went to the office of his 
insurance agent, J.J. Kelly, Jr. Mr. Casolaro paid the premium 
for his homeowner's insurance to the Nationwide Mutual Fire 
Insurance Company. While he was at his agent's office, he called 
Danielle Stallings, his friend and real estate agent. Ms. 
Stallings told us that Mr. Casolaro mentioned that he wanted her 
to arrange a meeting for the following week with an acquaintance 
of hers whose mother-in-law was knowledgeable about the 
Philippines. As he was leaving Mr. Kelly's office, Mr. Casolaro 
asked Mrs. Kelly for directions to Interstate 66 - West, a common 
route from Northern Virginia to West Virginia. 

Mr. Casolaro then drove to Martinsburg, West Virginia, and 
checked into the Sheraton Inn. The desk clerk, James Lopez, 
recalled that Mr. Casolaro checked in between 1:00 and 2:00 p.m. 
He had a reservation and gave Mr. Lopez a credit card. Mr. Lopez 
gave Mr. Casolaro one key to room 517. According to Mr. Lopez, 
Mr. Casolaro told him that he was not going to open the room 
right away because he was late for an appointment at the Stone 


Crab Inn, a restaurant and bar not far from the Sheraton. Mr. 
Lopez said he thought Mr. Casolaro had an old, "beat up" 
briefcase with him, but he was not sure. 

The bartender working at the Stone Crab Inn that day 
reported that Mr. Casolaro arrived at about 12:30 p.m. 43 The 
bartender who had previously worked at the Sheraton Inn, 
recognized Mr. Casolaro from a prior visit he had apparently made 
to Martinsburg about a year earlier. Mr. Casolaro told him that 
he was going to be meeting with "some Arabs" at about 1:00 p.m. 
According to the bartender, no one arrived. At about 1:20 p.m. 
Mr. Casolaro asked the bartender for four quarters. He went 
outside and returned a few minutes later. There are both 
cigarette machines and a public phone outside the Stone Crab Inn. 

Mr. Casolaro had a bottle of wine and a draft beer that 
afternoon at the Stone Crab Inn. He spoke with another man at 
the bar about a vineyard the man owned. Mr. Casolaro charged 
twenty dollars worth of drinks on his Mastercard while at the 
Stone Crab Inn that afternoon. 

Mr. Casolaro left the Stone Crab Inn at about 3:30 p.m., 
telling the bartender he wanted to go back to his hotel to check 
for messages and that he might be back later for the happy hour. 
However, Mr. Casolaro apparently went directly to a Pizza Hut 
restaurant located near the Sheraton. The waitress working 

43 Although this is inconsistent with Mr. Lopez's 
recollection that Mr. Casolaro checked into the hotel between 
1:00 and 2:00, and went to the Stone Crab Inn, we find the 
discrepancy insignificant. 


there, a college student, positively identified him as having 
arrived at about 3:30 p.m. She said that he ordered a pitcher of 
beer and a small pizza. He drank the entire pitcher of beer but 
ate only one or two pieces of the pizza and left the Pizza Hut at 
about 4:00 p.m. 

Hr. Casolaro was next seen at Heatherf ield' s lounge, located 
inside the Sheraton Inn. At this point there is a significant 
discrepancy in the recollections of two witnesses. The 
bartender, who had served Hr. Casolaro on a prior visit to 
Hartinsburg, recalled that he walked into the bar between 5:30 
and 6:00 p.m. She recalled that Hr. Casolaro drank beer by 
himself until about 6:30 p.m., when another hotel guest, the 
occupant of room 519 from St. Paul, Hinnesota, sat down at the 
bar and began talking to him. The bartender remembered that Hr. 
Casolaro started drinking bottled beer, but later switched to 
draft beer. Hr. Casolaro spoke with the hotel guest from 
Hinnesota until about 11:30 p.m., when the bar closed. The 
bartender does not recall seeing Hr. Casolaro talking with anyone 
else that night. 

However, the waitress at the Heatherf ield' s Lounge told a 
different story. The police originally met her by chance, when 
they went to the home of one of the Sheraton desk clerks to 
interview him three days after Hr. Casolaro' s death. She 
happened to be at the desk clerk's home. When the police showed 
her Hr. Casolaro' s photograph, she said she remembered seeing him 
in the bar but could not remember anything else. Later that day 

( she contacted the police, saying she had now remembered that Mr. 

Casolaro had arrived at the bar at about 5:10 p.m., and that he 
sat at a table with another man whom she described as "dark 
skinned, like maybe Iranian or Arabian." The waitress recalled 
that both men were drinking draft beer, and that the "Iranian or 
Arabian" man was drinking very fast and was very insistent that 
he be served quickly. She claimed to have served four beers each 
to Mr. Casolaro and the other man. She also said the other man 
paid for all the beers in cash. Three days later, she helped the 
police prepare a composite drawing of the "Iranian or Arabian" 
person. On September 16, 1991, the police interviewed the 
waitress again. She still stood by her story, but, according to 
the police, her recollection seemed hazy and uncertain. No one 
has been able to determine who the "Iranian or Arabian" person 
was, if indeed there was such a person. 

The waitress' recollection conflicts with the bartender's 
recollection in several respects, the most important of which 
are: (1) the bartender recalled Mr. Casolaro entering the bar 

alone and initially sitting by himself while the waitress 
recalled him sitting with an "Iranian or Arabian" man; (2) the 
bartender recalled that he sat at the bar while the waitress 
maintained that he sat at a table; (3) the bartender recalled 
that he started drinking bottled beer while the waitress claimed 
he only drank draft beer; and (4) the bartender claimed Mr. 
Casolaro only spoke with one person, the guest from Minnesota, 
the whole evening while the waitress claimed he spoke with the 


"Iranian or Arabian" man. 

The bartender's recollection is corroborated by Mr. 
Casolaro's bar tab, which shows that, beginning at 6:00 p.m. , Mr. 
Casolaro purchased one bottled beer, then another bottled beer, 
and then switched to draft beer. In all, he purchased seven 
beers that evening. 44 The bartender's recollection is also 
corroborated by the Minnesota guest's memory of the evening. He 
recalled meeting Mr. Casolaro for the first time near the ice 
machine down the hall from their fifth floor rooms sometime 
between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m. A short while later, he went down to 
the hotel bar, saw Casolaro drinking alone and joined him. 
According to the hotel guest, they spent the rest of the evening 
talking. Mr. Casolaro told him all about the Octopus project and 
said he was waiting to meet "some Arabs." He recalled that Mr. 
Casolaro acted agitated when the "Arabs" failed to show. 

Given the fact that both the guest from Minnesota and the 
credit card records are consistent with the bartender's 
recollection, we are led to believe her recollection is likely to 
be the more accurate. In any event, the Martinsburg police were 
unable to locate any individual matching the description provided 

44 Mr. Casolaro's family and friends insist that Mr. 
Casolaro was neither an alcoholic nor a "heavy drinker". 

However, Wendy Weaver, a close friend, told us that he drank to 
excess two or three times per week. Furthermore, Ms. Weaver and 
Lillian Pittaway told us that he seemed to be drinking more 
heavily near the end of his life. Finally, an appointment book 
provided to us by his neighbor included passages written by Mr. 
casolaro reflecting a struggle with his alcohol use. For 
example, in one passage, he wrote, "I wonder if the root of my 
rinking is loneliness — for true companionship." 


to them by the waitress, and there is no evidence linking such an 
individual with Mr. Casolaro's death. 

Friday, August 9. 1991 

The next day, Friday, August 9, 1991, Mr. Casolaro went to 
the front desk at the Sheraton at about 12:00 p.m. and told the 
desk clerk, Mr. Lopez, that he would be staying one more night. 

At about 1:30 p.m., a hotel maid, Barbara Bettinger, spoke with 
Mr. Casolaro outside his door. He asked whether the maids could 
clean his room right then because he had work to do. Another 
maid, Roxanne Willis, went inside the room and cleaned while he 
waited outside. Ms. Willis noticed a bottle of wine on the lamp 

Mr. Casolaro was next seen at the Stone Crab Inn at about 
2:30 p.m. He drank beer until about 5:30 p.m. According to the 
bartender who was on duty at that time, Mr. Casolaro seemed 
depressed and lonely and acted as if he wanted to talk to 
someone. He bought five beers, one shrimp cocktail and one 
crabcake sandwich with his credit card. The bartender who worked 
the 6:00 p.m. to 1:00 a.m. shift at the Stone Crab Inn did not 
see anyone matching Mr. Casolaro's description in the bar during 
her shift that night. 

After leaving the Stone Crab Inn, Mr. Casolaro placed a 
collect call to his mother's house in Fairfax County at about 
6:00 p.m. His family had planned a birthday party for his niece 
that evening. He spoke with his mother and told her he would be 
late for the party, if he made it at all. 


At 7:00 p.m., a group of people from Pennsylvania, who had 
traveled to Martinsburg for a soccer tournament that weekend, 
checked into rooms 514, 515, 516 and 520. Mr. Casolaro was 
staying in room 517. At about 9:00 p.m., one of the occupants of 
room 515 saw someone matching Mr. Casolaro' s general description 
enter room 517 with a key. She did not see the person's face, as 
his back was to her. However, she recalled that he was carrying 
a brown paper bag. 

Shortly after midnight, Mr. casolaro walked to the Sheetz 
Convenience Store across the parking lot from the Sheraton. He 
asked for coffee, and the store clerk brewed a fresh pot for him. 
She gave Mr. Casolaro a medium coffee and did not charge him 
because he had to wait for the pot to brew. Both the store clerk 
and another witness in the store at that time recalled that Mr. 
Casolaro seemed relaxed and that he made small talk with them 
both. When he left they saw him walk back toward the Sheraton. 

The above account of Mr. Casolaro 's movements on Friday, 
August 9 is not complete. We have not been able to pinpoint his 
whereabouts between noon and 1:30 p.m. or between 6:00 and 9:00 
p.m. 45 

45 After learning of Mr. Casolaro 's death, William Turner, 
one of Mr. Casolaro' s sources for the Octopus theory, claimed to 
have met with him in the Sheraton parking lot on August 9. Mr. 
Turner has been unclear as to the time of the meeting, placing it 
anywhere between noon and 6:00 p.m. Mr. Turner has been 
inconsistent with other important aspects of his story as well. 
For example, shortly after Mr. Casolaro' s death, he told local 
authorities that Mr. Casolaro had given him a "stack of documents 
iighteen inches high." However, he told us that Mr. Casolaro had 
iven him three sealed manila envelopes containing documents 
2fore the August 9 meeting, and that he returned two of those 


Saturday, August 10. 1991 

As described above, Mr. Casolaro's body was found at 
approximately 1:00 p.m. Dr. Frost estimated the time of death as 
between 7:00 and 8:00 a.m. 

3 . Mr. Casolaro's State of Mind in August 1991 

The most difficult aspect of any investigation involving the 
possibility of a suicide is the effort to determine why a 
particular individual might have taken his or her own life. 
Nevertheless, we felt it to be part of our task at least to 
address some of those issues. In our investigation, we found 
numerous factors that might have caused Mr. Casolaro concern 
and/or despair during the last year of his life. By identifying 
those factors, we do not pretend to conclude that they 
necessarily contributed to Mr. Casolaro's suicide. Rather, we 
identify them in order to provide a complete picture of the 
events leading up to his death. 

envelopes to Mr. Casolaro during that meeting. He said he kept 
the third packet in his safe. In any event, no one witnessed the 
meeting in the hotel's parking lot. 

We find Mr. Turner's statements lack credibility. First, as 
indicated above, he has contradicted himself on several 
occasions. Second, he has made inaccurate statements about his 
background. Third, he has been convicted of a crime involving 
false statements. On September 13, 1991, he pleaded guilty in 
federal court to one felony count of making a false statement in 
1988 to the Veteran's Administration. He was sentenced to 60 
days in prison and five years probation. Then, on December 30, 
1993, after Mr. Turner had moved to Tennessee and while he was 
still on federal probation, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and 
Firearms searched his home pursuant to a warrant. They found 23 
firearms inside, including several with no serial numbers. As a 
result, Mr. Turner was sentenced on June 30, 1994, to six months 
for violation of his probation. 


Financial Concerns 

There is no question that, after spending over a year 
developing his Octopus theory, Mr. Casolaro found himself in a 
difficult financial condition and was greatly concerned as a 
result. As discussed above, Mr. Casolaro' s home mortgage called 
for a balloon payment of $178,790 on August 9, 1991. Although 
the mortgage company extended the payment period for 30 days, 
that entire amount was coming due on September 8, 1991. The 
Martinsburg police investigation found that he had already 
borrowed substantial amounts from his family earlier in the -year. 

While he faced the balloon payment in a matter of weeks, Mr. 
Casolaro' s income prospects appeared dim at the time of his 
death. Since the summer of 1990, when he first began to pursue 
the INSLAW story, he had repeatedly and unsuccessfully attempted 
to secure a publisher for his story. Mr. Casolaro asked his 
cousin, New York City psychologist and part-time author Dr. Louis 
Petrillo, to help him find an agent. In September, 1990, Dr. 
Petrillo arranged for him to meet a New York City literary agent. 
The New York agent agreed to represent Mr. Casolaro in attempting 
to negotiate a book deal. 

On November 2, 1990, Mr. Casolaro sent a letter to the agent 
enclosing copies of various songs and poems he had written. Mr. 
Casolaro mentioned in the letter that he was now working on his 
investigation "exclusively," but that he was also looking for a 
paying job while waiting for an advance. Mr. Casolaro enclosed a 
resume that significantly overstated his prior professional 


accomplishments. He also enclosed a six-page treatment for the 
book he was hoping to publish, which he entitled, "Behold, A Pale 
Horse: A True Crime Narrative." 

In the treatment, Mr. Casolaro wrote about the Cabazon 
Indian reservation in Southern California and its alleged 
connection to international arms dealing; the assassination of 
"super gun" inventor Gerald Bull; and the suicide bombing of the 
U.S. Marine barracks in Lebanon. On the last page of the 
treatment, he proposed that "[t]he first three chapters of the 
manuscript should be finished within three months of an initial 
advance and each subsequent chapter will be delivered every 
month. The completed book should be ready for publication by the 
summer of 1991." 

The New York City agent began searching for a more 
experienced literary agent who could put together a combined book 
and television deal for his client. He also asked Mr. Casolaro 
to sign a one-year "exclusive" representation agreement, under 
which the agent would receive a 20% gross commission, plus an 
additional 10% gross commission to any third parties, for any 
sales of '"Behold, A Pale Horse,' including without limitation 
phonograph recordings, video, television, motion pictures, radio, 
music publishing, songwriting, live performances, books, 
merchandising, lecture(s), seminar (s) . . . ." The agreement was 
signed on March 14, 1991. 

On December 10, 1990, Mr. Casolaro *s New York City agent 
contacted Creative Artists' Agency (CAA) , a major Hollywood 


talent agency, to see whether they would be interested in meeting 
Mr. Casolaro. Six days later, CAA agent Melanie Ray flew to New 
York and met with Dr. Petrillo, Mr. Casolaro and his New York 
City agent for brunch. Mr. Casolaro had two drinks before Ms. 

Ray arrived and apparently did not make a good impression on her. 
During the meeting, Mr. Casolaro said the Octopus project was his 
"shot at a. piece of investigative journalism to put me on the 
map," and that he wanted to do something "to make my son proud of 
me." 46 Ms. Ray said that CAA was not interested, but she offered 
to help him find another literary agent. 

Several days later Ms. Ray wrote to the New York City agent, 
indicating that she had found another literary agent, Elizabeth 
Mackey, who was willing to read the "Pale Horse" treatment. In 
her letter Ms. Ray also referred to Casolaro* s behavior at the 
New York brunch in unflattering terms: "To expect 'cloak-and- 

dagger* and to get slapstick was quite scintillating." 

During the next six months, according to Ms. Ray's records, 
Mr. Casolaro and his New York City agent contacted both Ms. Ray 
and Ms. Mackey dozens of times to check the status of efforts to 
find a publisher and obtain an advance for Mr. Casolaro. 

on April 20, 1991, after returning from a trip to see Mr. 

46 This was not the first major investigative effort 
undertaken by Mr. Casolaro. In the mid 1970s, he spent 
considerable time pursuing an "alternative" theory on the 
Watergate break-in in which the break-in was actually engineered 
by intelligence operatives loyal to the Democratic Party. 
According to this theory, the Democrats knew they would lose the 
1972 election, so they engineered the break-in to look like a 
•epublican operation, thus sowing the seeds for President Nixon's 
ventual downfall. 


Riconosciuto in Washington, Mr. Casolaro wrote a letter to the 
New York City agent. He enclosed another treatment, this time 
entitled "Update on the Pursuit of the Tape and the Jailing of 
Danger Man." In this treatment, Mr. Casolaro described his trip 
to Washington state and how he had spent hours unsuccessfully 
searching for a tape that Mr. Riconosciuto claimed contained 
threats by Mr. Videnieks directed at him. In his cover letter, 
Mr. Casolaro wrote: 

I must explain how much deeper in debt I am. Every month 
that goes by without income puts another $4,500 or so on my 
liability just keeping my family and self alive. On top of 
that, my mortgage which is now up to $300,000 is scheduled 
for final payment in September 1991. 

On May 31, 1991, Ms. Mackey called Ms. Ray and told her that 
she had decided not to represent Mr. Casolaro. Ms. Ray notified 
the New York City agent of Ms. Mackey's decision. Several days 
later, Ms. Mackey telephoned Ms. Ray to see whether Ms. Ray could 
ask Mr. Casolaro* s New York City agent to "keep Casolaro from 
calling her and pleading his case for representation now that she 
has turned him down." On June 6, 1991, Ms. Mackey wrote a letter 
to Mr. Casolaro, informing him that her agency would not 
represent him. Mr. Casolaro contacted Ms. Mackey again in July, 
and on July 31, 1991, Ms. Mackey sent another letter rejecting 
him yet again. 

In addition to the efforts to find a publisher through Ms. 
Ray and Ms. Mackey, Mr. Casolaro and his New York City agent also 
contacted Time Warner and its subsidiary. Little, Brown & Co. On 
December 17, 1990, Mr. Casolaro, his agent and Dr. Petrillo met 


with Kelso Sutton of Time Warner and Roger Donald of Little, 
Brown. Mr. Donald looked at Mr. Casolaro' s materials, and 
rejected it. However, he suggested that Time Warner's magazine 
division might be interested, but that Mr. Casolaro would have to 
work with a Time Magazine staff writer to develop the story. Mr. 
Casolaro refused. He said that he wanted to do the project as a 
book, and he wanted to do it by himself. 

Mr. Casolaro called Mr. Donald again approximately three 
weeks before his death and asked him to review some "new 
material." Mr. Casolaro faxed the material to Mr. Donald, who 
reviewed it. Mr. Casolaro contacted Mr. Donald again several 
days before his death, and Mr. Donald again told him that Time 
Warner and Little, Brown were not interested in publishing Mr. 
Casolaro* s "Octopus" project or in paying him an advance. 

On July 22, 1991, Mr. Casolaro faxed to his New York City 
agent his final treatment. The three and one-half page treatment 
is entitled "The Octopus." He attached to the treatment a two 
page list of 51 individuals and groups comprising a "Cast of 
Characters." The treatment surveys various scandals and other 
international events of the late 20th century. In the cover 
letter, Mr. Casolaro wrote: 

I have purposefully left out some names in the CAST OF 
CHARACTERS for two separate reasons. I will tell you 
those names and the reasons when we talk. 

This is my final week for these marathon hours over the 
last 12 months. Encountering this odyssey, meeting it 
with my whole life, is to grapple with something 
personal since I've risked everything. By Friday, I 
have to come up with about $5000 just to cover my 
mortgage payment and my real estate taxes and in 


September I'll be looking into the face of an oncoming 
train. Father, what will I do? 

Still, I feel the happiness that an eskimo must feel 
when he comes across fresh bear tracks when he*s ahead 
of all the other sledges. It's just the way it 
has happened. 

It appears that Mr. Casolaro never had any chance of finding 
a publisher for his work. Mr. Donald, for example, told the 
Martinsburg police, when they contacted him after Mr. Casolaro's 
death, that Mr. Casolaro's work was "amateur" and that it 
reflected simply a rehash of material commonly available in 
newspaper and magazine articles. Ms. Ray and Ms. Mackey likewise 
were unimpressed with his work. 47 

Dr. Tony Casolaro told us that his brother would never have 
committed suicide over money. He explained that their family was 
very close and his brother always knew that he could turn to his 
family for financial resources. 

The Onset of Multiple Sclerosis 

As discussed above, the autopsy revealed that Mr. Casolaro 
had been suffering from multiple sclerosis at the time of his 
death. We are unaware of any direct evidence that the disease 
was diagnosed before his death. Our investigation found that the 
last time he had been to a doctor was 18 months before his death 

47 Mr. Casolaro's frustration in finding a publisher for his 
Octopus story was the last in a series of financial setbacks. 

Mr. Casolaro had enjoyed great professional success with a 
computer newsletter he owned called Computer Age . However, he 
was forced to sell the publication in 1990 after he began to 
experience some financial difficulties. Though he thought he 
would continue to work for the new owner, he was fired following 
the sale. 


when he needed emergency treatment after accidentally dropping a 
barbell on his head. 

However, there are some indications that the disease was 
beginning to affect his life and that he was concerned that he 
had some sort of illness. For example, during June and July 
1991, some of Mr. Casolaro's friends noticed that he seemed to be 
having certain physical problems. Ann Klenk noted that Mr. 
Casolaro experienced some sort of motor difficulty with his right 
hand and had trouble opening a window in her house. On another 
occasion Mr. Casolaro, who was in apparently good physical shape, 
had trouble finishing a friendly volleyball game. On another 
occasion, he was too exhausted to help his friend Bill Webster 
paint his house. Mr. Casolaro also complained on separate 
occasions to both Wendy Weaver and Ann Klenk about vision 
trouble. He began borrowing Wendy Weaver's eyeglasses for 
reading and reduced his night driving. Ms. Weaver observed that 
Mr. Casolaro also seemed to have weakness in his limbs, and that 
he could not perform various simple tasks around the house. 

Also, several weeks before his death, he confided to his 
friend Ann Klenk that he was "having trouble thinking." 

According to Ms. Klenk, he said that "if I ever couldn't think 
I'd kill myself." 

Finally, Mr. Casolaro approached Anne Weinfield, a long-time 
friend and nurse, several months before he died and asked her 
about "research" he was doing about "slow acting viruses," 
including multiple sclerosis. Ms. Weinfield recalls that he 


specifically asked her about the symptoms and consequences of 
multiple sclerosis. 

Other Indications 

There were some other indications that are, at the very 
least, consistent with a state of mind contemplating suicide. 

For example, several days before his death, Mr. Casolaro showed 
Zoe Gabriel le Milroy, a friend, a letter that he had written to 
his son in which he imparted what Ms. Milroy described as ’'heavy” 
fatherly advice. Ms. Milroy told us that she immediately asked 
Mr. Casolaro if the letter was actually a suicide note. She said 
he changed the subject. 

Four days before his death, Mr. Casolaro 's neighbor, Olga 
Mokros, came to his house. She worked as a housekeeper for Mr. 
Casolaro. Ms. Mokros helped Mr. Casolaro pack a suitcase as he 
told her he was going on a trip. She asked if she should prepare 
the house for his son, who was expected on a visit from Colorado 
in two weeks. According to Ms. Mokros, Mr. Casolaro told her 
that he "would not see [his son]" anymore. He then took her into 
his basement office and showed her where he kept his will. 

* There were other indications of strange and perhaps suicidal 
behavior as well. For example, in approximately May 1991, Mr. 
Casolaro was housesitting for his friend Bill Webster. According 
to Ms. Klenk, Mr. Casolaro called her at 5:00 a.m. one morning 
and told her he had hurt himself. He said he had "spent the 
night on the roof" of the house and that he had fallen off and 
hurt his leg. Several days later, however, Mr. Webster called 


Ms. Klenk and told her he had found a broken ceramic object and 
some bloody towels in his basement. During the autopsy. Dr. 

Frost found a healed scar on the inside of Mr. Casolaro's right 
leg near the femoral canal and vein. 

Ms. Klenk also told us that, in approximately October 1990, 
Mr. Casolaro had a mysterious auto accident in which his car went 
off the side of the highway. Mr. Casolaro told Ms. Klenk and 
Wendy Weaver that he thought he had been forced off the road, but 
he did not want to report the incident to the police or to seek 
medical treatment. We were unable to learn enough about this 
incident to determine whether it was a legitimate accident, a 
staged suicide attempt or a homicide attempt. 

Some of his friends also noticed that he had become 
"obsessed” and "all consumed" with the "Octopus" story by early 
1991. Two of Mr. Casolaro's closest friends, Wendy Weaver and 
Ann Klenk, both report that he was completely immersed in the 
story. They both told us that Mr. Casolaro slept and ate very 
little during the final months of his life. Jim Pittaway, who 
had known Mr. Casolaro for several years, told us that beginning 
in February, 1991 Mr. Casolaro slipped into a "fantasy land" of 
conspiracy and intrigue. Other friends say that Mr. Casolaro was 
"losing his grip" on reality. 

Dr. Petrillo and Ann Kldnk both told us that Mr. Casolaro 
was absorbing huge amounts of information, so much that he was 
having trouble organizing it in his mind. Mr. Casolaro told Ms. 
Klenk that he was becoming frustrated at his inability to 


organize his thoughts and reduce his ideas to writing. Wendy 
Weaver and Ann Klenk report that he was "disappointed" and "hurt" 
at his failure to secure a publisher or obtain an advance. Ann 
Klenk, herself a professional journalist, suggested to Mr. 
Casolaro that he try to break the project into smaller, more 
manageable bits and to try publishing it piecemeal, perhaps as a 
series of newspaper or magazine articles rather than as a book. 

Not all of Mr. Casolaro ’s friends, however, considered him 
to have been depressed or emotionally upset. Ben Mason and Wendy 
Weaver, for example, report that he appeared enthusiastic about 
the "Octopus" project and insist that he continued to be 
generally upbeat and happy. 

Psychological Autopsy 

Finally, at our request, the FBI’s National Center for the 
Analysis of Violent Crime, located at the FBI Academy in 
Quantico, Virginia, conducted an equivocal death analysis, or 
"psychological autopsy," of Mr. Casolaro. Three FBI behavioral 
scientists prepared a report examining Mr. Casolaro 's life 
history and his behavior during the final weeks and months of his 
life. They also reviewed the autopsy report. They concluded 
that Mr. Casolaro had committed suicide and that he may have 
intentionally "scripted" the end to his own life. 

The behavioral scientists noted that the "one common 
denominator in the life of Mr. Casolaro up until 1990 appeared to 
be feelings of high expectations of success, followed by 
disappointments." They found that while Mr. Casolaro "wore the 


facade of the eternal optimist . . . deep down inside he may have 
perceived himself as a failure as an author, an investigative 
reporter, a husband, a father and as a businessman.*' The 
behavioral scientists found his physical problems and possible 
concern about multiple sclerosis very significant, noting that 
"the thought of having a progressively debilitating disease may 
have been overwhelming." 

Added to the other "stressors" in Mr. Casolaro's life, he 
may have believed that his situation was deteriorating and that 
"he was running out of time." The report noted that by "planting 
the seeds" in the minds of those close to him that he may have 
been killed, Mr. Casolaro thought he might be alleviating the 
guilt feelings his family and friends would feel for not 
preventing his suicide. In addition, Mr. Casolaro might have 
hoped that by making his death look mysterious, he might gain in 
death the journalistic fame he had never enjoyed in life, by 
"dying for a story," becoming "a martyr for truth and justice," 
only to have been "silenced on the eve of his greatest triumph by 
the forces of evil." 4 * 

4 * Most forensic scientists regard the psychological autopsy 
tool as a valuable aid in understanding the mental state leading 
to an individual's decision to commit suicide. However, the 
courtroom evidentiary value of psychological autopsies has 
recently been criticized in a recent law review article. Ogloff 
and Otto, Psychological Autopsy; Clinical and Legal Perspectives . 
37 St. Louis U.L.J. 607 (1993) (attacking reliability of 
psychological autopsies) . 


4. Allegations Concerning Mr- Casolaro's Death 

There is no credible evidence that Mr. Casolaro's death was 
anything other than a suicide. Nor is there any evidence placing 
any other individual in Mr. Casolaro's hotel room on either the 
evening of August 9 or the morning of August 10, 1991. 
Furthermore, the evidence is wholly consistent with suicide. 
Nevertheless, several individuals have speculated that some sort 
of foul play was involved in Mr. Casolaro's death. In this 
section, we review those allegations. 

Ethvl Alcohol Injection 

INSLAW recently asserted that perhaps someone entered Mr. 
Casolaro's room and injected him above the spine with "ethyl 
alcohol absolute," thereby deadening his nerves. Dr. Cash, the 
West Virginia toxicologist, found no ethyl alcohol in Mr. 
Casolaro's blood. Moreover, Dr. Frost found no injection sites 
anywhere on his body. Pure ethyl alcohol would have been 
particularly irritating to the skin, but no such irritations were 
found during the autopsy. 

We asked Dr. Yale Caplan, a Baltimore toxicologist and 
former President of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, 
about the "ethyl alcohol absolute" theory. He agreed with Dr. 
Frost that it would have been impossible for Mr. Casolaro to have 
received such an injection without Dr. Frost seeing evidence of 
it during the autopsy. Dr. Caplan also noted that such an 
injection would have to have been precisely and expertly made, 
with Casolaro's cooperation, for it to have achieved a "nerve- 


deadening" effect. 

Involvement of Mr. Riconsciuto 

On September 30, 1991, Robert Booth Nichols, one of Mr. 
Casolaro's primary sources, told Detective Sergeant Swartwood of 
the Martinsburg Police Department that he thought Mr. Casolaro 
had been murdered and that Michael Riconosciuto was probably 
involved in some way. He did not and has not provided any basis 
for those allegations other than his claims that Mr. Casolaro was 
investigating some dangerous individuals. 

We are unaware of any evidence linking Mr. Riconosciuto to 
Mr. Casolaro's death. Further, Mr. Riconosciuto was in prison in 
Tacoma, Washington, awaiting trial on methamphetamine charges, on 
the day Mr. Casolaro's body was discovered. 

Involvement of Robert Booth Nichols 

Robert Booth Nichols, a self-styled "international 
businessman," was one of Mr. Casolaro's primary sources. 

Telephone records from the last few months of Mr. Casolaro's life 
indicate that the two men spoke regularly and at length during 
that time period. 49 

According to several of Mr. Casolaro's friends, he spoke 
often of Mr. Booth Nichols and described him as a mysterious 
figure with connections to Japanese organized crime, the 

49 Mr. Booth Nichols and Mr. Casolaro also met at least once 
during the early summer of 1991. The two men had dinner at a 
restaurant in Virginia. The following day, Mr. Casolaro 
introduced him to his friend Wendy Weaver. Contrary to some 
published reports, Ms. Weaver told us that Mr. Booth Nichols did 
not punch, grab or beat up anyone in a bar while she was with him 
md that he did not boast of connections with organized crime. 


intelligence community and international arms dealers. Mr. 
Casolaro told several friends that he had heard from other 
sources that Mr. Booth Nichols was dangerous and that he had been 
involved in several murders. 

An article in the January 1993 issue of Spy magazine 
suggests that Mr. Booth Nichols may have had Mr. Gasolaro killed 
because he feared Mr. Casolaro was about to expose him as 
someone who had years earlier offered to become an FBI informant 
against the mafia. We found no evidence that he had anything to 
do with Mr. Casolaro' s death. Furthermore, he was in London on 
the day that Mr. Casolaro died. 50 

Involvement of Peter Videnleks 

Mr. Riconosciuto and others have suggested that Peter 
Videnieks, the Department of Justice contracting officer on the 
PROMIS contract, was also somehow involved in Mr. Casolaro 1 s 
death. There is no evidence whatsoever of Mr. Videnieks' 
involvement. The allegations appear to rest on the fact that Mr. 
Videnieks' wife works for Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia, 

50 Though Mr. Booth Nichols conveyed an image of intrigue to 
Mr. Casolaro, it is clear that at least some of that image was 
exaggerated. For example, in a lawsuit against the Los Angeles 
Police Department, he testified that he had been a member of the 
United States intelligence community for many years. ( Booth 
Nichols v. City of Los Angeles . No. NCC 31322B, Trial Transcript, 
Mar. 11, 1993, 32 et sea . ) No evidence supports that claim. In 
fact, the CIA informed us that it does not have, nor has it ever 
had, any employment relationship, contractual relationship or any 
other association with Mr. Booth Nichols. Mr. Booth Nichols also 
testified that he had once "been instructed" to make a bid to 
purchase the assets of the Summa Corporation in the late 1970s, 
following Howard Hughes' death. f id. 141-51). The documents 
connected to that incident, however, reflect that Summa summarily 
rejected Booth Nichols* overtures. 


the state in which Mr. Casolaro's death occurred, and that Mr. 
Videnieks was a friend of Joseph Cuellar. 

In addition, Charles Hayes, the Kentucky salvage dealer, 
told Martinsburg police that Peter Videnieks and Dr. Earl Brian 
had gone to the Sheraton Inn in Martinsburg around the time of 
Mr. Casolaro's death to play in a "high-stakes poker game, 
requiring $10,000 minimum to sit at the table." The police found 
it difficult to believe that gaming of that magnitude could have 
been going on in Martinsburg without their knowledge. 
Nevertheless, they investigated this lead but were unable to 
corroborate it. As discussed above, we believe Mr. Hayes lacks 

During an interview with us, Mr. videnieks denied having any 
involvement in Mr. Casolaro's death and claimed that he was with 
his wife at their summer cottage in Treadwell, New York, from 
August 5 to August 11, 1991. His personnel records reflect that 
he was on leave during this time period, and a credit card 
receipt shows that he made a purchase at a bookstore in Oneonta, 
New York on August 9, 1991. His telephone records indicate that 
a call was placed to his brother from the Treadwell cottage on 
August 9, 1991 at 8:35 p.m. 

We have no reason to question Mr. Videnieks* claim that he 
was in New York on August 10, 1991 and are unaware of any 
evidence linking Mr. Videnieks to Mr. Casolaro's death. 

Involvement of Joseph Cuellar 

Army Reserve Major Joseph Cuellar also was in contact with 


Hr. Casolaro during the last few months of his life. Hr. 

Casolaro apparently met Hr. Cuellar by chance one afternoon in 
Hay 1991 at "The Sign of the Whale" bar in Arlington, Virginia. 
Hr. Cuellar had gone to the bar expecting to meet some friends 
who were going to celebrate his return from Operation Desert 
Storm. Hr. Casolaro, who was already seated at the bar waiting 
for his friend Lynn Knowles when Hr. Cuellar arrived, struck up a 
conversation with Hr. Cuellar. Hr. Cuellar talked of his 
exploits in the Army special forces, and, according to Hr. 
Cueller, Hr. Casolaro became fascinated. After Hs. Knowles 
arrived, she listened as the two men discussed various military 
issues. When Hr. Cuellar's friends arrived, they made 
arrangements to meet again. 

The two men talked on the phone several times after they 
first met. They also saw each other at least two additional 
times. In addition. Hr. Cuellar started dating Hs. Knowles. 

During one of their conversations, Hr. Casolaro apparently 
asked about various individuals involved in his "Octopus" story. 
Hr. Cuellar told him he knew Peter Videnieks. According to Hr. 
Cuellar, he explained that he knew Hr. videnieks because his 
former fiance had worked with Hr. Videnieks' wife in the Capitol 
Hill office of West Virginia Senator Robert Byrd. Both Hr. 
Cuellar and Hr. Videnieks told us that their relationship was 
social, that they had double-dated with their significant others 
a number of times, and that they saw less of each other after Hr. 
Cuellar broke up with his fiance. 


Once he learned of Mr. Cuellar's relationship with Mr. 
Videnieks, Mr. Casolaro asked Mr. Cuellar repeatedly to arrange a 
meeting with Mr. Videnieks. Mr. Casolaro wanted to interview Mr. 
Videnieks about the allegations made by Mr. Riconosciuto in his 
March 1991 affidavit that Mr. Videnieks had threatened him. Mr. 
Cue Her called Mr. videnieks to try to arrange a meeting, but Mr. 
Videnieks refused. 51 

After Mr. Casolaro died, Mr. Cuellar stopped dating Ms. 
Knowles. She told us that at one point, as their relationship 
was deteriorating, he made a veiled threat to her, stating that 
she was asking too many questions about Mr. Casolaro, that she 
had two children, and that she would not be doing them a favor if 
she were to wind up like Mr. Casolaro or another journalist who 
had been killed in Guatemala. Mr. Cuellar denied making those 
statements to her. 

Several people have suggested that Mr. Cuellar was somehow 
involved in Mr. Casolaro* s death. We found no evidence 
supporting that hypothesis. On the day Mr. Casolaro died, August 
10, 1991, Cuellar was in Washington, D.C., working on his 
"outprocessing" from Desert Storm, and his "in-processing" into 
the Southern Command. Several witnesses have verified that he 
was in Washington on August 10, 1991. 

51 According to Mr. Cuellar, Mr. Casolaro confided in him 
near the end of his life, expressing frustration that he had 
become so wrapped up in the "Octopus" story that he had lost his 
perspective and was unable to arrange the material into a 
cohesive story. Mr. Casolaro also told him that he was in 
financial distress and that he was close to losing his house. 


Threats Directed at Mr. Casolaro 

During the last few weeks of his life, Mr. Casolaro told 
several of his friends that he had been receiving death threats 
over the telephone, in addition, Mr. Casolaro* s neighbor, Olga 
Mokros, told us that she was in Mr. Casolaro' s house on the 
Monday before he died, that she answered the phone, and that the 
caller uttered a death threat. She could not recall any other 
specific occasions on which Mr. Casolaro received such a call, 
even though she was at his house nearly every day. Mr. Casolaro 
also told several people that the story he was working on was 
"dangerous" and that he had sent his younger brother John away 
from the house because of the danger. According to Dr. Tony 
Casolaro, his brother once told him, "If I die, don't believe it 
was an accident." 

However, several of Mr. Casolaro 's closest friends told us 
they now believe, with the benefit of hindsight, that he invented 
at least some of the threatening phone calls and the other 
"dangers" involved in his work so that people would believe, 
after he committed suicide, that he might have been murdered. 

Jim Pittaway told us that he thinks Mr. Casolaro committed 
suicide and that he "shrouded his death in mystery" so that his 
conspiracy theories would outlive him. He told us that when he 
suggested to Mr. Casolaro that he contact the phone company after 
he had allegedly received threatening calls, Mr. Casolaro quickly 
changed the subject. Lillian Pittaway, Jim Pittaway's wife, 
described Mr. Casolaro as self -destructive. Zoe Gabrielle 


Milroy, a close friend of Mr. Casolaro's for fourteen years, 
believes that he "perpetrated this conspiracy theory" to make his 
death seem mysterious and to ease the pain his family would 
suffer from an outright suicide. 52 Pete Kennedy, a guitarist and 
friend, shares Ms. Milroy' s view that Mr. Casolaro wanted 
everyone to think he was in danger so that his death would appear 
mysterious. Ms. Milroy also discounts the views of those who say 
Mr. Casolaro was not depressed, noting that he was a "consummate 
actor" who could be "laughing on the outside, but very hurting on 
the inside." 

"Village Voice" Phone Call 

On Sunday night, August 11, 1991, the day before news of 
Casolaro's death became public, a writer at the Village Voice in 
New York City named Dan Bishoff received a telephone call. Mr. 
Bishoff later told the Martinsburg police that he was in his 
office that evening when the phone rang on a direct dial line. 

The caller told him, "There has been a death of a journalist in 
West Virginia that needs to be looked into." Mr. Bishoff told 
the police that the caller may have mentioned the name 
"Casserole. " 

We spoke with Mr. Bishoff. Although he continues to assert 
that he received a telephone call on August 11, he said that, 
upon reflection, he is not sure whether the caller mentioned the 

52 Sadly, Mr. Casolaro was not the first person to commit 
suicide in his family. In 1971, his younger sister took her own 
life by overdosing on drugs. She was 18 years old and living in 
the Haight- Ashbury district of San Francisco at the time. 


name "Casserole" or anything else approximating Casolaro. He 
told us that many "conspiracy buffs" had his inside telephone 
line, and he frequently received calls about dead journalists. 

He indicated that at the time he spoke with the Martinsburg 
police, he "wanted it to be true" that Mr. Casolaro had been 
murdered, but that now he believes he committed suicide. He told 
us that he now regards the Sunday night telephone call as "not 
significant. " 

Casolaro* s Fear of Needles and Blood 

Some of Mr. Casolaro' s family and friends suggest that he 
would not have committed suicide by cutting his wrists because he 
was frightened of needles and the sight of blood. We spoke with 
several doctors and dentists who treated Mr. Casolaro during the 
years before his death. Dr. Tony Casolaro* s medical partner. Dr. 
Steven Zimmet, told us that during a routine physical examination 
approximately two years before Casolaro died, Casolaro put up a 
fuss before submitting to a blood test. However, Dr. Stanley 
Levin, who performed a root canal on Casolaro in December 1990, 
told us that Mr. Casolaro exhibited no fear of needles, blood, 
pain, or any of the other incidents of oral surgery. 

Casolaro *s Planned Meeting In West Virginia 

Mr. Casolaro told many of his friends and family that he was 
going to West Virginia to meet a "source." No one with whom we 
spoke recalls Mr. Casolaro ever identifying who it was he 
supposedly planned to meet. Mr. Casolaro himself gave varying 
descriptions of the "source," telling the Weinfields that he did 


not know the identity of the person he was going to meet; telling 
Lillian Pittaway that he was going to meet someone who would give 
him his "biggest tip;" and telling Ben Mason that he was going to 
see "the guys." 

As discussed in some detail above, we were able to account 
for most of Mr. Casolaro 's time in West Virginia. We were unable 
to find any conclusive evidence that he met with anyone while in 
Martinsburg other than his chance meetings with various 
individuals at bars and restaurants. However, as noted above, a 
waitress at the Sheraton’s Heather field Lounge said she saw Mr. 
casolaro meeting with either an "Iranian or Arabian" individual 
on Thursday, August 8. Also, William Turner claims to have met 
with Mr. Casolaro on the afternoon of August 9. 

For the reasons indicated above, we are not convinced that 
either of these meetings took place. However, regardless whether 
these meetings took place, there is no evidence linking any of 
the alleged participants in the meetings to Mr. Casolaro' s death. 

The Paper in Casolaro' s Shoe 

During forensic testing, the West Virginia State Police 
Crime Laboratory found a folded piece of paper inside Mr. 
Casolaro' s left shoe. The shoe had been found in room 517, next 
to the bed. The paper had indentations, as if someone had 
written something on a page on top of the paper. The laboratory 
determined that the paper had come from the same legal pad on 
which Mr. Casolaro had written the suicide note. The laboratory 
was able to reproduce the impressions left on the paper. The 


writing was Mr. Casolaro's; and the paper read as follows: 

o u tlin e 

Chapter on 1980. 

Terrorist underground. Afghanistan. Mideast. Iran. 

John Philip Nichols after arrival 

Indian Reservation 

Fred Alvarez 

Paul Morasca 

Philip Arthur Dempson 


Hercules — Bill Kilpatrick The Big Tex — Ricono 
San Francisco 

Finish up chapter w/ Paul M. & Fred A. / ord 
There is no indication when Casolaro had written those 
words, or why he had put the piece of paper inside his shoe. 

Lack of Documents 

Several of Mr. Casolaro's friends and family members told us 
that Mr. Casolaro typically carried a significant number of notes 
and documents with him. The fact that no documents were found in 
Mr. Casolaro's hotel room following his death, they suggest, may 
indicate that he was killed and his notes taken. 

There is no credible evidence that Mr. Casolaro ever had any 
documents with him while he was in Martinsburg. All the hotel 
employees, including the maids that cleaned his room, told the 
police that they never saw any documents either in Mr. casolaro's 
room or in his immediate possession. Nor was he seen with any 
documents at any other location in Martinsburg. In short, there 
is no credible evidence that there were ever any documents 
reflecting his investigation in his hotel room. 

Mr. Lopez, the desk clerk, said he may have seen Mr. 

Casolaro with a briefcase but he is not sure. In light of his 


lack of certainty and the fact that none of the other hotel 
employees recall seeing a briefcase or documents, we believe that 
Mr. Lopez was probably mistaken. 53 

F. Conclusion 

The overwhelming physical evidence points to the conclusion 
that Mr. Casolaro committed suicide: the crime scene, the 

autopsy, the blood spatter report and the toxicology report as 
well as the other aspects of the investigation undertaken by the 
Martinsburg police and us. Furthermore, there were indications 
during the last few months of Mr. Casolaro* s life that he was 
despondent and exhausted. Although there were mistakes made 
during the original investigation into the death (most 
particularly the failure to seal the room and the early embalming 
of the body) , we have no reason to believe that the original 
investigations were not thorough or undertaken in anything other 
than the utmost good faith. Based on our review of all the 
evidence, we concur with the conclusion reached by Martinsburg 
police authorities that Mr. Casolaro took his own life. 

We reached that conclusion after carefully considering the 
questions and concerns raised by his family and friends as well 
as by others. After reviewing them, we believe that many of 
those questions are typical of the types of questions that follow 
any suicide. As for the allegations of foul play raised by some 

53 William Turner claims to have given Mr. Casolaro some 
documents on Friday, August 9, 1991. As discussed above, we find 
his story to be wholly unreliable. 


individuals, there is simply no evidence supporting the 
involvement of any of the individuals identified in Mr. 

Casolaro's death. 

VI. The Attorney General Should Not Appoint an Independent 

Prosecutor to Further Investigate INSLAW's Charges. 

In its 1992 report, the House Judiciary Committee 
recommended that the Attorney General appoint an independent 
counsel to investigate, among other things, "INSLAW's allegations 
of a high level conspiracy within the Department to steal 
Enhanced PROMIS software to benefit friends and associates of 
former Attorney General Meese." (House Report 113.) Since that 
time, the independent counsel law has expired and subsequently 
been renewed. We strongly recommend, based on all of the 
conclusions reflected in this report, that an independent counsel 
not be appointed to investigate any claims related to the INSLAW 

First, INSLAW's allegations have been fully and fairly 
investigated by a special counsel and have been found to be 
totally lacking in credibility. There is no reason to question 
the integrity or independence of Judge Bua or his investigation. 
To the contrary. Judge Bua's integrity is above reproach, and our 
review of his investigation confirmed the thoroughness and 
independence of his efforts in this endeavor. An independent 
prosecutor would simply duplicate that effort. Accordingly, the 


appointment of an independent prosecutor would, in our opinion, 
constitute a waste of government funds and an unwise use of the 
talents and energies of whatever respected lawyer was so 

Second, the Department of Justice has already conducted a 
review of the allegations made by INSLAW and determined that they 
were not sufficient to warrant the initiation of a preliminary 
investigation under the Independent Counsel statute. In February 
1988, INSLAW submitted a series of allegations to the Public 
Integrity Section of the Department of Justice which it 
maintained justified the appointment of an independent counsel. 
Those allegations included, among others, the charges that former 
Attorney General Edwin Meese and Judge Jensen conspired to steal 
INSLAW's software; that the conspiracy was intended to benefit 
Hadron and Dr. Brian; that the Department interfered with 
INSLAW's legal representation by inducing Dickstein, Shapiro & 
Morin to ask INSLAW's attorney to withdraw from the firm; that 
the Department sought to seek a conversion of INSLAW's bankruptcy 
to a liquidation proceeding; and that the Department instigated 
or encouraged a hostile take-over bid of INSLAW by Systems and 
Computer Technology, Inc., in order to obstruct INSLAW's suit 
against the Department. In May 1988, the Department informed 
INSLAW that the allegations were insufficient to warrant a 
preliminary investigation under 28 U.S.C. § 591 and that the 
matter was accordingly closed. The determination was made after 
careful consideration by the Department of the credibility of the 


source of the allegations and the specificity of those 
allegations as required by the Independent Counsel statute. 54 

Third, there are no "covered" officials for whom the 
appointment of an independent counsel would be appropriate at 
this time. The Independent Counsel Reauthorization Act of 1994 
limits the applicability of the law to one year after the covered 
government official leaves office. All the potential targets of 
such an investigation have been out of office for more than one 
year. Accordingly, there are no covered officials that would 
require triggering the provisions of the Independent Counsel law. 

And fourth, the discretionary appointment of an independent 
counsel for officials not considered to be "covered" officials 
requires a determination that an investigation of such an 
official by the Department would result in a "personal, financial 
or political" conflict of interest. There is no indication that 
such a conflict exists or would exist if the Department were to 
bring charges against any of the individuals identified by INSLAW 
as allegedly being involved in a conspiracy to hurt INSLAW. 

54 INSLAW subsequently submitted a request to the Division 
for the Purpose of Appointing Independent Counsels of the U.S. 
Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit to appoint 
an independent counsel. The request was rejected on 
jurisdictional grounds. In re INSLAW. Inc. . 885 F. 2d 880 (D.C. 
Cir. 1989). INSLAW's petition for a writ of mandamus directing 
the Attorney General to conduct a criminal investigation based on 
INSLAW's various allegations also was rejected by the courts. 
INSLAW. Inc, v. Thornburgh . 753 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1990). 


VII. The Department of Justice Should Not Authorize The Payment 

Of Any Additional Compensation To INSLAW. 

At the heart of the controversy between INSLAW and the 
Department of Justice is a dispute over money. The basic dispute 
centers on (1) whether INSLAW has any proprietary rights in the 
PROMIS software that it used to perform its obligations under its 
1982 contract with the Justice Department, and (2) if so, whether 
INSLAW is entitled to compensation greater than that called for 
by the contract. INSLAW asserts that the answer to both of those 
inquiries is yes and that it is, therefore, entitled to the $6.8 
million awarded it by the Bankruptcy Court and hundreds of 
millions of dollars more for consequential damages. The 
Department of Justice has maintained throughout the course of its 
dealings with INSLAW that INSLAW has failed to demonstrate the 
existence of any proprietary enhancements in its software and 
that, even if INSLAW did use software containing proprietary 
enhancements to satisfy its contractual obligations to the 
government, it is not entitled to any compensation beyond that 
provided for in the contract. 

It should be noted from the outset that we considered this 
issue one of the most difficult ones before us. There is no 
dispute that, in the 12 years since the PROMIS contract was 
executed, INSLAW has failed to obtain any kind of enforceable 
judgment on any of its claims. INSLAW's failure in prosecuting 
its claims comes despite extensive litigation over the years. 
However, there is also no dispute that the Bankruptcy Court did 


award INSLAW $6.8 million in damages based on the court's 
conclusion that the Department had violated the automatic stay 
provisions of the bankruptcy laws. In re Inslaw . 113 B.R. at 
815-819. Although that decision was overturned by the U.S. Court 
of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit on the ground that the 
Department's actions did not constitute a violation of the 
automatic stay, 932 F.2d at 1475, we were troubled by the factual 
findings of the Bankruptcy Court. 

After carefully reviewing all the relevant facts and the 
various judicial opinions that have been issued in relation to 
this dispute, we conclude that the Department of Justice should 
not authorize the payment of any moneys to INSLAW or its 
principals. There is no credible evidence that any Department of 
Justice official in any way hindered INSLAW's ability to litigate 
its claims against the Department. Moreover, we believe it is 
clear that any claims INSLAW may have once had against the 
government are now barred by the applicable statutes of 
limitations. After reviewing all the issues raised by INSLAW, we 
find that there is no basis warranting the waiver by the United 
States of the statutory time bars to INSLAW's claims. 

Furthermore, and most importantly, we do not believe that, even 
if INSLAW's claims were timely, it would be entitled to any 
additional compensation. 

A. The History of INSLAW's Monetary Claims. 

Under the Contract Disputes Act, 41 U.S.C. § 601 et seq. . 


all claims arising under a government contract must be submitted 
to the appropriate government contract officer for resolution. 

The contract officer's decision becomes final and conclusive 
unless review is sought before the appropriate Board of Contract 
Appeals within 90 days or before the U.S. court of Federal Claims 
within one year. Appeals from either the Board of Contract 
Appeals or the Claims Court lie solely with the U.S. Court of 
Appeals for the Federal Circuit. These procedures provide the 
exclusive jurisdiction for litigating claims against the United 
States arising under a contract governed by the Contract Disputes 

There are two groups of claims that INSLAW still maintains 
entitle it to additional compensation. The first involves a 
series of miscellaneous contractual claims ("DOTBCA Claims") . on 
August 8, 1984, INSLAW submitted a letter to Peter Videnieks, the 
Department's contracting officer, asserting claims for computer 
center costs ($160,583) and target fees ($331,447). Mr. 

Videnieks denied those claims on November 20, 1984, and INSLAW 
filed a timely notice of appeal with the Department of 
Transportation Board of Contract Appeals ("DOTBCA") in February, 
1985. 55 

On October 17, 1985, INSLAW submitted additional claims 
totalling $4.1 million to Mr. Videnieks. These claims included a 
$2.9 million claim for licensing fees allegedly due as a result 

55 The DOTBCA has jurisdiction over government contract 
claims against the Department of Justice. 


of the Department's use of INSLAW's proprietary enhancements 
("Data Rights claim") and $1.2 million more in miscellaneous 
claims. The contracting officer denied these claims in rulings 
issued on February 21 and September 4, 1986. INSLAW appealed 
these rulings, with one exception, to the DOTBCA. In its May 
1986 notice of appeal of the February 21 ruling, INSLAW made 
clear that it was "not appealing to this Board that portion of 
the [Contracting Officer's] Final Decision on Data Rights." All 
of the other October 1985 claims were appealed to the DOTBCA. 

INSLAW failed to pursue vigorously the claims that it had 
appealed to the DOTBCA. In October 1992, the DOTBCA, noting that 
"it is clear that INSLAW is most anxious to avoid trial of the 
issues," concluded that the "principal reason that, after all 
these years, trial has not commenced, has been INSLAW's repeated 
requests for suspension and continuance, including a Bankruptcy 
Court suspension of Board proceedings at INSLAW's behest." 56 

56 Despite this finding, INSLAW and the House Report both 
maintain that Department of Justice attorneys were responsible 
for delaying and obstructing the various suits between the 
parties. For example, the House Report asserts that in 1990 the 
Department requested the United States Court of Appeals for the 
District of Columbia Circuit to consider the matter for the 
Court's Appellate Mediation Program in bad faith in order "to 
maintain the facade of working diligently to settle a tricky 
contract dispute while working behind the scenes to sabotage it 
and keep pressure on INSLAW by forcing it to expend additional 
resources on legal support during the mediation process." House 
Report 41-42. 

The only support cited by the House Report for this 
conclusion is the fact that an October 1, 1990, Washington Post 
article quoted a Department spokesperson as disclosing publicly 
that the Department had requested that the matter be considered 
for mediation, and, following this disclosure, INSLAW elected to 
withdraw from mediation. Although the reported disclosure did 


Later that same month, eight years after asserting its initial 
claims, INSLAW submitted a motion to the DOTBCA seeking to 
withdraw all of its claims, asserting that it could no longer 
afford legal counsel to pursue the case. In an order dated 
November 9, 1992, the DOTBCA granted INSLAW's motion and 
dismissed the claims: "The requested dismissal in effect results 
in a determination that no amounts are owing to INSLAW under its 
claims... The appeals before the Board are hereby dismissed with 
prejudice." Appeal of INSLAW. Inc. . Docket Nos. 1609, 1673, 
1775, 1828, Opinion by Administrative Judge Robertory (DOTBCA 

not violate any confidentiality rule of the Appellate Mediation 
Program, the Program's administrator inquired of the parties 
whether or not they wanted to continue with the mediation 
following the publication of the article as the disclosure 
violated the Program's goal of strict and total confidentiality. 
INSLAW elected to withdraw from the mediation at that time. 

Despite the House Report's conclusion that the breach in 
confidentiality suggests bad faith on the part of Department 
attorneys, there was no indication in any of the internal 
Department documents we reviewed that suggest the Department 
sought a mediated resolution to its dispute with INSLAW in 
anything other than the utmost good faith. Furthermore, the fact 
that the Department had sought mediation had been reported in 
numerous articles more than six months earlier when the 
Department first applied to the program. In fact, several of 
those earlier articles reported that Mr. Hamilton denounced the 
use of a mediator in the case. ("U.S. Seeks Mediator in Software 
Lawsuit," The Washington Times . April 2, 1990, p. B5.) It is 
difficult to understand how a re-publication of a fact that had 
been published six months earlier — and which had been commented 
on by Mr. Hamilton at that time — prejudiced INSLAW in such a 
way as to "force INSLAW to withdraw from the program." There is 
simply no evidence to support the House Report's extremely 
critical interpretation of the events surrounding the mediation 
effort. If anything, the evidence suggests that INSLAW 
capitalized on an opportunity presented to it in October 1990 to 
get out of a process that it never supported. 


NOV. 9, 1992). 57 

Rather than pursuing an appeal to the DOTBCA on its Data 
Rights Claims, INSLAW decided to pursue those claims as part of 
its bankruptcy proceedings. In a novel and ultimately 
unsuccessful litigation strategy, INSLAW filed an adversary 
proceeding before the Bankruptcy Court alleging the Department of 
Justice was willfully violating the automatic stay by its 
continuing use of Enhanced PROMIS. In essence, INSLAW repackaged 
its Data Rights Claims in the vernacular of a bankruptcy 
proceeding. In 1988, Bankruptcy Judge Bason issued his opinion 
in which he concluded, among other things, that (l) INSLAW's 
claims were not based on contract and therefore were not 
foreclosed by the exclusive jurisdiction of the Contract Disputes 
Act, and (2) INSLAW had established a violation of the automatic 
stay provisions of the Bankruptcy Act. United States v. Inslaw. 
Inc. . 83 B.R. 89 (Bankr. D.D.C. 1988), rev 1 d . 932 F.2d 1467 (D.C. 
Cir. 1991), cert, denied . 112 S.Ct. 913 (1992). Judge Bason 
found that the Justice Department had acquired Enhanced PROMIS by 
"fraud, trickery, and deceit." He awarded INSLAW $6.8 million in 
damages for violations of the automatic stay. 

Although Judge Bason's decision was affirmed by the District 
Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit reversed 
the decision on the grounds that the Department's actions had not 

57 The Department of Justice had filed a number of 
counterclaims against INSLAW before the DOTBCA. Those claims 
were also dismissed by the DOTBCA in light of its determination 
that the Department's claims were setoffs and did not seek 
affirmative recoveries. 


violated the automatic stay and, therefore, the Bankruptcy Court 
had no jurisdiction over INSLAW's Data Rights Claims. The court 
of Appeals directed the Bankruptcy Court to vacate all of its 
orders concerning the Department's alleged violations of the 
automatic stay and to dismiss INSLAW's complaint against the 
Department. 932 F.2d at 1475. INSLAW's petition for a writ of 
certiorari was denied. 112 S.Ct. at 913. 

B. INSLAW Is Barred From Asserting Any Additional Claims 
Against The United States. 

There are currently no claims pending before any judicial 
tribunal between the United States and INSLAW. Furthermore, we 
are convinced that INSLAW would be barred by the applicable 
statutes of limitation from attempting to pursue any monetary 
claims against the United States. 

All of the DOTBCA claims were dismissed with prejudice by 
the DOTBCA on November 9, 1992, pursuant to INSLAW's own motion 
to dismiss. Under § 8(g) of the Contract Disputes Act, the 
Board's decision "shall be final" unless the contractor files an 
appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 
within 120 days of the Board's decision. 41 U.S.C. § 607(g). 
INSLAW did not do so, thus rendering the DOTBCA's decision final. 

INSLAW's Data Rights Claims are also time barred. The 
contracting officer issued a decision with regard to those claims 
on February 26, 1986. INSLAW never appealed that decision to an 
appropriate forum, i.e., either the DOTBCA or the Court of 
Federal Claims. In fact, in its notice of appeal to the DOTBCA, 


INSLAW specifically excluded its Data Rights Claims from its 
appeal. Instead, INSLAW and its counsel decided to pursue that 
claim using a novel theory in the bankruptcy court. As was 
ultimately determined, the bankruptcy court did not have 
jurisdiction to hear those claims. Any further pursuit of those 
claims would appear to be foreclosed by § 6(b) of the Contract 
Disputes Act, which provides: "The contracting officer's decision 
on a claim shall be final and conclusive and not subject to 
review by any forum, tribunal, or Government agency, unless an 
appeal or suit is timely commenced as authorized by this 
chapter." Accordingly, the contracting officer's 1986 decision 
rejecting INSLAW's Data Rights Claims is final. 

In a meeting with us and in various other forums, INSLAW has 
asserted that its claims for the allegedly wrongful use by the 
Department of Justice of its proprietary enhancements (i.e., its 
Data Rights Claims) are not governed by the Contract Disputes Act 
as they do not arise from the PROMIS contract. INSLAW contends 
that these claims are better understood as grounded in the tort 
of conversion. We do not think the recharacterization of its 
claims as arising in tort will enable INSLAW to circumvent the 
applicable statute of limitations. First, the Contract Disputes 
Act applies to all claims that are essentially contractual in 
nature even if they are styled differently. Our analysis of the 
controlling case law leads us to conclude that INSLAW's claims 
are "essentially contractual." See , e.g. . Spectrum Leasing Corp. 
v. United States . 764 F.2d 891 (D.C. Cir. 1985). In fact, it is 


worth noting that when INSLAW first asserted these Data Rights 
Claims to the contracting officer in 1985 they were presented as 
•'arising under the above-referenced [PROMIS] contract” and the 
amount claimed was certified by Mr. Hamilton as a "contract 
adjustment. " 

Second, even in the unlikely case that the Contract Disputes 
Act is not controlling, any claims that INSLAW would have under 
the Federal Tort Claims Act would almost certainly be barred by 
the FTCA's two-year statute of limitations. 28 U.S.C. § 2401. 

C. The Circumstances Surrounding iNSLAW's Allegations Do 
Not Warrant The Waiver By The United States Of The 
Statutory Time Bars To INSLAW's Monetary Claims. 

One of the principal missions of the Department of Justice 
is to ensure that individuals are treated fairly and justly in 
their dealings with the United States government. Accordingly, 
the determination that any claims INSLAW may have against the 
United States are barred by the applicable statutes of limitation 
does not end our inquiry. We believe that in those exceptional 
cases where not to do so would result in the commission of a 
manifest injustice, the United States should be willing to 
provide compensation to individuals even if the government is 
protected by applicable time limitations. This is not one of 
those situations. 

First, INSLAW has had ample opportunity to fully litigate 
its claims in the courts of this country. Over the years, INSLAW 
has been represented by some of the finest attorneys and law 
firms in the country who have vigorously and zealously 


represented INSLAW's interests. According to a document filed by 
INSLAW with the DOTBCA in 1992, INSLAW had incurred over $6 
million in legal fees by that time. We are aware that INSLAW and 
its counsel made strategic litigating decisions that they may 
want to take back today: they decided to let INSLAW's claims 
before the DOTBCA languish for eight years, and they decided to 
pursue a novel, untried theory in Bankruptcy Court rather than to 
litigate the Data Rights Claims in the forum they knew was 
proper. As noted by DOTBCA Judge Robert J. Robertory, these were 
strategic decisions: 

Inslaw elected to pursue the issue of ownership in 
Promis in the Bankruptcy Court as a violation of the 
automatic stay imposed by 11 U.S.C. § 362, which eventually 
led to the Court of Appeals ruling (932 F.2d 1467, supra ) 
that such claim could not be maintained on that basis. In 
so doing. Inslaw avoided the two tribunals (this Board and 
the United States Claims Court) which unquestionably had 
jurisdiction to determine the legal propriety of the Justice 
Department's use of Promis. The reason for this election 
was stated by one of Inslaw's counsel to be a fear that this 
Board would apply the rationale of Bell Helicopter Textron . 
ASBCA No. 21,192, 85-3 BCA 5 18,415 (1985), and hold that 
the Data Rights clauses of the contract gave title to the 
Promis enhancements to the Justice Department. In other 
words, Inslaw and its counsel were of the opinion that under 
the law of government contracts as expressed in Bell 
Helicopter Textron , under the provable facts of this case 
the Justice Department had sufficient ownership interest in 
Promis to permit the uses which the Justice Department made 
of it, without liability to Inslaw. This indicates that 
Inslaw and its counsel were of the opinion that Inslaw's 
position in the linchpin portion of the parties' dispute, 
title to the Promis software (an issue which Inslaw's appeal 
did not place before the Board) , might be without foundation 
in law or fact. 

The lack of success flowing from those decisions does not entitle 
INSLAW to relief from the statutes of limitation. 


Furthermore, there is no credible evidence that any 
Department of Justice official did anything to hinder or 
frustrate INSLAW's access to the courts or its ability to present 
fully its claims. Had INSLAW been denied such access and the 
statute had subsequently run, we would have a very different 

Second, we concur with the Special Counsel's conclusion that 
"all of the actions taken by DOJ employees were done with a good 
faith belief that they were in the best legitimate interests of 
the government." (Bua Report 125.) The reason why this disp'ute 
did not come to a close following INSLAW's unsuccessful efforts 
in the courts and before the DOTBCA is that INSLAW has cloaked 
its contract dispute with the government with allegations of 
conspiracies, international intrigue and murder. By doing so, 
INSLAW has been able to attract and sustain media interest in 
what otherwise is nothing more than a government contracts 
dispute. In the process, INSLAW and its principals have repeated 
and broadcast unsubstantiated rumors apparently without any 
concern for the reputations of those referred to in those rumors. 
Individuals previously of stellar reputation and unquestioned 
integrity have had to live under clouds created by INSLAW. Those 
clouds have almost all been created based on nothing more than 
the alleged statements of "anonymous sources." As detailed 
throughout this and the Special Counsel's report, we have found 
virtually no credible evidence supporting INSLAW's conspiracy 
allegations. We believe INSLAW should not be rewarded for its 


ability to keep its story alive by ruining the reputations of 
innocent individuals. 

And third, after carefully reviewing the record, we do not 
believe INSLAW is entitled as a matter of law to additional 
compensation for the use of its PROMIS software. We have studied 
the opinions of the bankruptcy court, some relevant portions of 
the bankruptcy court record, the analysis of the Special Counsel 
and the views of INSLAW as reflected in its written submissions 
and in various meetings with its principals. Based on that 
review, we concur with the analysis and conclusions of the 
Special counsel regarding the rights of the parties under the 
contract and the propriety of the government's conduct under the 
contract. (Bua Report 15-38, 124-140, 147-150, 250-255, 261-263.) 
Further, we believe the current use of INSLAW's PROMIS software 
by the Department in the Executive Office of United States 
Attorneys and in U.S. Attorneys' offices around the country is 
permitted under Modification 12 and other provisions of the 
contract. 58 Since we were unable to identify any credible 
evidence that the Department has distributed Enhanced PROMIS 
beyond those offices, we do not believe INSLAW is entitled to 

58 Modification 12 provides: 

The Government shall limit and restrict the 
dissemination of the said PROMIS computer software to the 
Executive Office for United States Attorneys, and to the 94 
United States Attorneys' Offices covered by the contract, 
and, under no circumstances shall the Government permit 
dissemination of such software beyond those designated 
offices pending the resolution of the issues extant between 
the Contractor and the • Government under the terms and 
conditions of Contract No. JVUSA-82-C-0074 . 


additional compensation. 

We believe it important to note that the House Report is 
erroneous in its repeated assertions that then-Deputy Attorney 
General Arnold Burns acknowledged to Office of Professional 
Responsibility investigators that "the Department had already 
determined [in 1986] that INSLAW's claim was probably justified 
and that the Department would lose in court." House Report 111; 
see also House Report 7, 33-34, 86. In fact, our review 
uncovered no evidence that Department officials took any 
positions during the litigation in bad faith or believed that 
IN SLAW deserved to recover moneys in addition to those provided 
for under the contract. 

The House Report misinterprets testimony given by Mr. Burns 
on March 30, 1988, to OPR investigators by totally ignoring the 
context in which that testimony was given. As noted in the 
dissenting statement to the House Report, once the context of Mr. 
Burns' statement that Department lawyers were "satisfied that 
INSLAW could sustain the claim in court" is taken into account, 
it is clear that he was referring to the strength of INSLAW's 
defense to a particular crossclaim bv the Department and not to 
the merits of INSLAW's affirmative claims against the government. 
See Dissenting views of Hon. Hamilton Fish, Jr. , et al. , House 
Report 116-117. The text of the relevant portion of Mr. Burns' 
testimony follows: 

Because as it was explained to me, the PROMIS system 
had been developed by INSLAW pursuant to a grant by the 
United States government, pursuant to a grant by us, the 
Department of Justice, the United States Government to 


INSLAW of a big sock of dough. And they, in effect, were 
developing this for the Department of Justice with 
Department of Justice money, working hand-in-glove as we 
sometimes do untold [sic] with other vendors or contractors. 

Under circumstances which, it struck me as a lawyer at 
the time, hearing this as a new room [sic], as a very 
peculiar notion. It struck me that in those circumstances, 
that the proprietary rights to this belonged to the 
Department of Justice and that if anything, the tables were 
turned the other way and that INSLAW should pay the 
Department of Justice royalties to the extent they were 
vending or selling or leasing or whatever they do to 
outsiders, to third parties. 

Now I should also tell you that in talking to my 
lawyers, I became sort of a little aggressive on this issue, 
as a lawyer, aggressing an issue, not aggressing people but 
addressing and aggressing an issue. And I wanted to know, 
as a lawyer, why we didn't make a claim against INSLAW for 
the royalties on the theory that we were the proprietary 
owners. And I got an answer. 

And the answer that I got, which I wasn't terribly 
happy with but which I accepted, was that there had been a 
series of old correspondence and back and forthing and 
stuff, that in all of that, our lawyers were satisfied that 
INSLAW could sustain the claim in court, that we had waived 
those rights, not that I was wrong that we didn't have them 
but that somebody in the Department of Justice, in a letter 
or letters, as I say in this back and forthing, had, in 
effect, waived those rights. 

(In the Matter of: Office of Professional Responsibility 
Investigation No. 86-0170, Interview of Arnold I. Burns, 11-12.) 
when read in context, Mr. Burns' statement fails, totally and 
quite clearly, to "raise the specter that the Department actions 
taken against INSLAW in this matter represent an abuse of power 
of shameful proportions." The statement is indicative of neither 
duplicity nor any other impropriety. 

We are aware that many of these conclusions are at odds with 
some conclusions reached by Judge Bason after trial in his court. 
We cannot explain why Judge Bason reached such very different 


conclusions from those that we and the Special Counsel have 
reached. 59 However, after carefully reviewing Judge Bason's 
opinions, it is clear that the decisions rest in large part on 
Judge Bason's determinations as to the credibility of the 
witnesses who testified during trial. The following was Judge 
Bason's first finding regarding the credibility of the witnesses 
that appeared before him: 

The testimony of William Hamilton was accurate in all 
or almost all respects, even taking into account the natural 
human tendency to emphasize those things favorable to one's 
own cause. Mr. Hamilton was an impressive witness with an 
exceptionally good memory and an extraordinary ability -to 
remember with precision details of events that occurred 
years ago. 

In re Inslaw . 83 B.R. at 156. He went on to find that virtually 
none of the testimony given by Department of Justice employees or 
by others (including INSLAW employees) supporting the 
Department's position was credible. Id. at 156-158. The 
importance of those credibility determinations is apparent from a 
close reading of the decision as the testimony of Mr. Hamilton 
and a few other INSLAW officials appears to be the only support 
for the vast majority of Judge Bason's findings. 

We disagree with Judge Bason's credibility determinations. 

As detailed throughout the Special Counsel's report and this 
report, the information provided to us by Mr. Hamilton has often 
been unreliable and is always self-serving. Numerous witnesses 

59 The House Committee Report reached the same conclusions as 
Judge Bason regarding the underlying contract dispute between 
INSLAW and the government. However, it appears that the report 
relies heavily on the findings of Judge Bason in reaching those 


have denied making statements attributed to them by Mr. Hamilton. 

Others have claimed that Mr. Hamilton badly mischaracterized 

their comments in order to make them fit into his conspiracy 

theories. These problems are not unique to our efforts. The 

House Committee report noted: 

Other witnesses directly contradicted the statements 
attributed to them by the Hamiltons and were clearly 
distressed that their names had been drawn into the 
web of the INSLAW conspiracy theory. 

(House Report 50.) The Special Counsel concluded: 

We cannot fail to note also the degree to which William 
Hamilton’s statements and assertions do not withstand - 
scrutiny. We repeatedly encountered witnesses who, in a 
very credible way, denied making the statements attributed 
to them by Hamilton. The witnesses who contradicted 
Hamilton were both friend and foe of INSLAW, and we could 
not explain the constant contradictions as simply the 
efforts of Hamilton's enemies. 

(Bua Report 266.) According to the DOTBCA , even INSLAW's counsel 
were concerned about Mr. Hamilton's credibility: 

The record contains statements by one of INSLAW's 
various attorneys indicating that Mr. Hamilton may be given 
to exaggeration. There was testimony in the Bankruptcy 
Court on December 7, 1988 by appellant's counsel that Mr. 
Hamilton's credibility was a real problem and would be a key 
issue in the case. 

After spending a substantial period of time reviewing Mr. 
Hamilton's statements and allegations, we believe that he is not 
a credible source of information. Furthermore, he appears 
willing to repeat and publish any rumor or conjecture that he 
hears without regard to the truth of those rumors or the effect 
his statements may have on the reputations of innocent